Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra, through the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Nagpur, filed a criminal application challenging an order dated 25.10.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Special Case 26/2018. The trial court had discharged the respondents (accused) from offences under sections 420, 109 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 13(1)(c)(d) read with 13(1)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The sole ground for discharge was that the chargesheet was filed on 02.08.2018, after the amended provisions of Section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act came into force on 26.07.2018, and the court was precluded from taking cognizance in the absence of previous approval from the State Government. The State argued that the amendment should not apply retrospectively to investigations that began before the amendment. The High Court, after hearing the parties, held that the amendment is procedural and applies to investigations commenced after the amendment date. Since the chargesheet was filed after the amendment and no prior approval was obtained, the trial court's order of discharge was upheld. The High Court dismissed the State's application.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Prevention of Corruption Act - Section 17-A - Sanction for Investigation - Amendment requiring prior approval for investigation of public servants applies to investigations commenced after 26.07.2018 - The trial court discharged the accused on the ground that the chargesheet was filed after the amendment came into force and no prior approval was obtained - The High Court upheld the discharge, holding that the amendment is procedural and applies to investigations after its commencement (Paras 2-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the amended Section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which requires prior approval of the State Government for investigation of a public servant, applies to a chargesheet filed after the amendment came into force, and whether the trial court was correct in discharging the accused for lack of such approval.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the State's application, upholding the trial court's order of discharge.
Law Points
- Section 17-A of Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988 requires prior approval for investigation of public servants
- amendment applies prospectively to investigations after 26.07.2018
- chargesheet filed after amendment requires sanction
Case Details
2021 LawText (BOM) (03) 147
Criminal Application (APL) 410 of 2019
Mr. M.K. Pathan (APP for applicant/State), Mr. P.V. Navlani (counsel for respondent 3), Mr. R.R. Vyas (counsel for respondent 2 and 4)
State of Maharashtra, through Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Nagpur
Gurudas S/o. Sahadev Mandavkar, Sanjay s/o. Laxman Kholapurkar, Sopan s/o. Ramrao Suryavanshi, Rohidas s/o. Maruti Landge
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal application by State challenging discharge of accused in corruption case
Remedy Sought
State sought setting aside of discharge order and restoration of charges
Filing Reason
Trial court discharged accused for lack of prior approval under Section 17-A of Prevention of Corruption Act
Previous Decisions
Trial court discharged accused on 25.10.2018 in Special Case 26/2018
Issues
Whether the amended Section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 applies to a chargesheet filed after the amendment came into force?
Whether the trial court was correct in discharging the accused for lack of prior approval under Section 17-A?
Submissions/Arguments
State argued that the amendment should not apply retrospectively to investigations that began before the amendment.
Respondents argued that the chargesheet was filed after the amendment and no prior approval was obtained, hence discharge was proper.
Ratio Decidendi
The amendment to Section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, requiring prior approval for investigation of public servants, is procedural and applies to investigations commenced after the amendment date. Since the chargesheet was filed after the amendment came into force and no prior approval was obtained, the trial court correctly discharged the accused.
Judgment Excerpts
The learned Additional Sessions Judge reasons thus: '...the present chargesheet is filed only for the alleged offences U/s. 13(1)(c)(d) R/w 13(1)(b) of P.C. Act. It is also admitted fact on record that the chargesheet was filed on 2/08/2018 i.e. after coming into force the amended provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act.'
The State of Maharashtra is assailing the order dated 25.10.2018, rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Special Case 26/2018, whereby the respondents are discharged from offences under sections 420, 109 of the IPC and sections 13(1)(c)(d) read with section 13(1)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act solely on the ground that in view of the amended provisions of section 17-A of the Act, the Court is precluded from taking cognizance of the offences in the absence of previous approval from the State Government.
Procedural History
The trial court discharged the accused on 25.10.2018 in Special Case 26/2018. The State filed Criminal Application (APL) 410 of 2019 before the High Court challenging the discharge order. The High Court heard the matter and dismissed the application on 05.03.2021.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 420, 109
- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: 13(1)(c)(d), 13(1)(b), 17-A
