9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (1) TMI 814 - SC - Indian LawsInterpretation of statute - Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988Corruption - siphoning of public funds - Difference of opinion - HELD THAT - As different views is expressed on the interpretation of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as also its applicability to the appellant in the subject-case, the matter is referred to the Hon ble the Chief Justice of India. The Registry to place the papers before the Hon ble the Chief Justice of India so that appropriate decision can be taken for the constitution of a Larger Bench in this case for adjudication on the point on which contrary opinions have been expressed.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of criminal proceedings and detention of the appellant. 2. Applicability and interpretation of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 3. Jurisdiction of the Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 4. Procedural validity of the remand order and the implications of non-compliance with Section 17A. Summary: 1. Legality of Criminal Proceedings and Detention: The appellant, a former Chief Minister, was implicated in a criminal proceeding initiated by the respondent State for offences u/s 166, 167, 418, 420, 465, 468, 471, 409, 209, and 109 read with Sections 120B, 34, and 37 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 12 and 13(2) read with Sections 13(1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The offences relate to the alleged siphoning of public funds for setting up skill development centers. The appellant was added as an accused via an "Accused Adding Memo" dated 08.09.2021 and arrested on 09.09.2023. The High Court dismissed the appellant's plea to quash the FIR and the remand order, leading to the present appeal. 2. Applicability and Interpretation of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: Section 17A, introduced with effect from 26.07.2018, mandates prior approval for any enquiry, inquiry, or investigation into offences related to recommendations or decisions made by a public servant in discharge of official duties. The High Court held that Section 17A does not apply retrospectively to offences committed before its enactment. The appellant argued that Section 17A is procedural and should apply retroactively to ongoing enquiries or investigations, even if the alleged offences occurred before 26.07.2018. The State contended that the enquiry into the alleged scam began on 05.06.2018, before Section 17A came into force, thus not requiring prior approval. 3. Jurisdiction of the Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: The appellant challenged the jurisdiction of the Special Judge, arguing that the remand order was invalid due to the absence of prior approval under Section 17A. The State maintained that the Special Judge had jurisdiction as the appellant was also charged with IPC offences, which could be tried together with offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Court held that the Special Judge's jurisdiction derived from Sections 3 and 4 of the 1988 Act and that the IPC offences were not merely ancillary to the 1988 Act offences. 4. Procedural Validity of the Remand Order and Implications of Non-Compliance with Section 17A: The Court examined whether the remand order was valid despite the lack of prior approval under Section 17A. It was held that the remand order was not rendered non-est due to non-compliance with Section 17A, as the Special Judge had jurisdiction to pass such an order. The Court also noted that the appellant could be proceeded against for IPC offences independently of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Conclusion: The appeal was partly allowed, holding that: 1. The appellant could not be proceeded against for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 without prior approval u/s 17A. 2. The State could seek such approval retrospectively. 3. The remand order dated 10.09.2023 was valid, and the appellant could be proceeded against for IPC offences. 4. The matter was referred to a larger bench due to differing judicial opinions on the interpretation of Section 17A.
|
