NARA CHANDRABABU NAIDU versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR.

Citation: [2024] 1 S.C.R. 549 · Decided: 16-01-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ANIRUDDHA BOSE, BELA M. TRIVEDI · Disposal: Matter referred to larger bench

cites 11 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

* Author
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 549 : 2024 INSC 41
Nara Chandrababu Naidu
v.
The State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.
(Criminal Appeal No. 279 of 2024)
16 January 2024
[Aniruddha Bose* and Bela M. Trivedi,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Interpretation of s.17A, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 
incorporated by the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 
26 of 2018 and its applicability to the facts of the present case.
Headnotes
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – s.17A inserted by the 
Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 26 of 2018 – 
Operation – Allegations against the appellant for commission 
of offences u/ss.166, 167, 418, 420, 465, 468, 471, 409, 209 
and 109 r/w ss.120-B, 34, 37, IPC and ss.12, 13(2) r/w ss.13(1)
(c) and (d), 1988 Act allegedly committed between 2015 and 
2019 when he was the Chief Minister of the State of Andhra 
Pradesh – FIR was registered in 2021 initially against 26 
accused, the appellant was later added as accused– Appellant 
sought quashing of the FIR and the order of remand passed 
by the Special Court – Dismissed by High Court – Plea of 
the appellant inter alia that the absence of prior approval as 
mandated by s.17A vitiated the conduct of enquiry or inquiry 
or investigation:
Held: Per Aniruddha Bose, J. If an enquiry, inquiry or investigation 
is intended in respect of a public servant on the allegation of 
commission of offence under the 1988 Act after s.17A thereof 
becomes operational, which is relatable to any recommendation 
made or decision taken, at least prima facie, in discharge of his 
official duty, previous approval of the authority postulated in sub-
section (a) or (b) or (c) of s.17A shall have to be obtained – In 
absence of such previous approval, the action initiated under the 
1988 Act shall be illegal – In the present case, original FIR was 
registered on 09.12.2021 and the appellant was implicated on 
550
[2024] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
08.09.2023 – There is no evidence of any substantive enquiry, 
inquiry, or investigation made against him prior to coming into 
operation of  s.17A – Appellant cannot be proceeded against 
for offences under the 1988 Act as no previous approval of the 
appropriate authority was obtained – Per Bela M. Trivedi, J. s.17A 
having been introduced as a part of larger legislative scheme, 
and the other offences under the PC Act having been redefined 
or newly inserted by way of Amendment Act, 2018, is required 
to be treated as substantive and not merely procedural in nature 
– Such a substantive amendment could not be made applicable 
retrospectively to the offences like ss.13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) which 
have been deleted under the Amendment Act, 2018 – Intention of the 
legislature was to make s.17A applicable only to the new offences 
as amended by Amendment Act, 2018 and not to the offences 
which existed prior to the coming into force of the Amendment Act 
2018 – In the instant case, the offences u/s.13(1)(c) and (d) were 
in force when the same were allegedly committed by the appellant 
– Deletion of the said provisions and the substitution of the new 
offence u/s.13 by the Amendment Act, 2018 would not affect the 
right of the investigating agency to investigate nor would vitiate 
or invalidate any proceedings initiated against the appellant – In 
view of difference of opinion, matter referred to the Hon’ble the 
Chief Justice of India for constitution of a Larger Bench.   [Paras 
12, 13, 20, 34 and 15, 21, 27]
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Penal Code, 1860 – Code of 
Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.223 – Allegations of commission 
of offences against the appellant under different provisions of 
IPC and 1988 Act – Appellant was added as accused by filing 
the Accused Adding Memo – By the Amendment Act 2018, 
several provisions, particularly the offences described under 
ss.7, 8, 9, 10 and 13 in the 1988 Act were substituted with the 
new provisions; and several new provisions like s.17A were 
inserted – Appellant filed petition seeking quashing of the FIR 
and the consequential order of remand passed by the Special 
Court, dismissed by High Court – Appellant argued that if the 
initial action was not in consonance with law, all subsequent 
and consequential proceedings would fall and once offences 
under the PC Act were effaced from existence, the custody 
of the appellant pursuant to the orders passed by the Special 
Court was without any sanction of law:
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 
551
Nara Chandrababu Naidu v. The State

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.