Nithyakalyani Narayanan. V
In the Chandrababu Naidu case, the division bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Bela M. Trivedi, disagreed not only on whether Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 (PC Act) may be applied retroactively but also about when an investigation under the Act should begin. On September 9, 2023, Chandrababu Naidu was taken into custody on charges of embezzling money from the Skill Development Corporation during his tenure as Chief Minister in 2015. The state exchequer is said to have suffered a loss of Rs 371 crore as a result. The claims have been refuted by Naidu.
The question at hand was whether the investigation into the case could be considered to have started on June 5, 2018, the day the Director General of the Anti-Corruption Bureau wrote to the DSP, CIU, ACB, and Vijayawada to investigate the complaints made against the Andhra Pradesh State Skill Development Corporation (APSSDC). This date is significant because it precedes the effective date of the 2018 amendment, which inserted Section 17A to the PC Act and went into force on July 26, 2021. The case’s first complaint was filed on December 9, 2021.
Justice Trivedi disagreed with Justice Aniruddha Bose’s assertion that the investigation cannot be considered to have started on June 5, 2018.
Bose J. held that an inquiry under the PC Act cannot begin with a request to undertake an inquiry to circumvent the restriction implied by that provision. In order to maintain that the letter dated June 5, 2018, does not commence the inquiry, Bose J. clarified what an inquiry, investigation, or inquiry is. In light of this, Paragraph 13 of the judgment issued by Bose J. is significant: “In ordinary perception, “enquiry” by a police officer would imply positive exercise for searching certain details or particulars pertaining to allegations of commission of an offence by an accused person or a set of accused persons. “Inquiry” is defined in Section 2 (g) of the 1973 and implies inquiry conducted under the Code by a Magistrate or Court. Similarly, “investigation” in terms of Section 2 (h) of the same Code includes all the proceedings conducted thereunder for collection of evidence by a police officer or a person authorised by a Magistrate in that behalf.”
He also went on to explain why it couldn’t be assumed that a letter dated June 5, 2018, was what started the investigation against Naidu- “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. These were requests for starting an enquiry, which obviously did not commence prior to the aforesaid dates in the year 2021. Thus, on this point I cannot accept the finding of the High Court that a regular enquiry was already initiated on 05.06.2018.”, Bose J. observed.
In addressing cases under Section 17A, the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Department of Personnel& Training) issued Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) dated September 3, 2021. Justice Trivedi took a different stance on this point, arguing that “Enquiry” refers to any action taken to confirm whether the information a police officer has received is relevant to a crime under the Act. In light of this, the letter dated June 5, 2018, implied that the inquiry was started on that day rather than the day the FIR, dated December 9, 21, was registered.
She further held that the investigation against Naidu was started prior to the effective date of S. 17A. Trivedi J. noted that although the investigation was prospective in nature, the new provision of S. 17A could not serve as a shield for Naidu, and as such, the PC Act does not require a prior sanction to begin prosecution against Naidu for the offence committed prior to the effective date of S. 17A.
Name of the case: Nara Chandrababu Naidu v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. | Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 12289 of 2023
Bench: Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Bela M. Trivedi