In the unfolding legal saga involving Nara Chandrababu Naidu, the Supreme Court division bench is not only grappling with the retrospective application of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 but also finds itself at odds over the pivotal question of when the enquiry should be deemed to have commenced.
The crux of the matter hinges on whether the enquiry can be retroactively traced back to June 5, 2018, when the Director General of the Anti-Corruption Bureau issued a directive to conduct a Regular Enquiry into complaints against the Andhra Pradesh State Skill Development Corporation (APSSDC). Importantly, this date predates the enactment of the 2018 amendment, effective from July 26, 2018, which introduced Section 17A to the PC Act. The FIR in this case was officially registered on December 9, 2021.
Justice Aniruddha Bose contends that a mere request to initiate an enquiry cannot serve as the starting point, emphasizing that such an action does not comply with the restrictions outlined in the PC Act. In his judgment, Justice Bose elucidates on the definitions of “enquiry,” “inquiry,” or “investigation,” asserting that the letter of June 5, 2018, did not kickstart the actual enquiry against Naidu.
He argues, “The nature of actions undertaken by the State after 05.06.2018 constitutes neither inquiry nor investigation, as no step under the 1973 Code was taken by the State prior to the year 2021. If that is the meaning attributed to this expression, the letter of 05.06.2018 or the earlier letter from taxing authority dated 14.05.2018 cannot be construed to be the commencing point of any enquiry.”
Conversely, Justice Trivedi takes a divergent stance, citing Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances, and Pensions. He interprets “enquiry” as any action taken to verify whether the information received by the Police Officer pertains to the commission of an offence under the Act. According to Justice Trivedi, the letter dated June 5, 2018, indicates the initiation of the enquiry from that specific date, not from the later registration of the FIR on December 9, 2021.
Justice Trivedi asserts that the enquiry against Naidu commenced prior to the implementation of Section 17A, and while applying it prospectively, he contends that the new provision should not serve as a protective shield for Naidu. Therefore, he concludes that a previous sanction to prosecute Naidu for offences committed before the commencement of Section 17A is not necessary under the PC Act to initiate an enquiry against him.
The legal wrangling is encapsulated in the case titled “Nara Chandrababu Naidu v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. | Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 12289 of 2023.”
Loading...
Reload document 
Open in new tab 
