The ACB court granted the CID, which was seeking five-day custody of Naidu, 48 hours to interrogate him further in the case.
Published Sep 22, 2023 | 2:18 PM ⚊ Updated Sep 22, 2023 | 4:09 PM
Chandrababu Naidu being taken for a medical exam before being taken to an ACB court. (Supplied)
Saying that it could not interfere since “the investigation is on fulcrum of attaining finality”, the Andhra Pradesh High Court on Friday, 22 September, dismissed TDP chief and former chief minister N Chandrababu Naidu’s quash petition challenging his arrest in the ₹371 crore skill development scam.
“The investigating agency, pursuant to the registration of the crime in the year 2021, examined as many as more than 140 witnesses and collected documents to the tune of more than 4,000. Profligacy is such an esoteric subject, where investigation has to be carried with utmost proficiency by the professionals,” the high court said.
Meanwhile, earlier in the day, the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) Court extended Naidu’s judicial remand to 24 September. Later, following the dismissal of Naidu’s quash petition in the high court, the ACB Court also granted the CID 48-hour custody of Naidu to interrogate him
The CID had filed a petition seeking five days of custody.
“At this stage, where the investigation is on fulcrum of attaining finality, this court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned proceedings. The Criminal Petition is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed, and the consequential reliefs sought are dismissed,” it added.
Legal experts said the court dismissed the petition as it could not deny the right of the investigating officer to probe the case in detail and find out the money trail and the truth.
The court dismissing Naidu’s quash petition put an end to the suspense that continued since Thursday. Several legal experts and lawyers thronged the court to know its decision.
A battery of media persons waited outside the court to give live coverage of the decision, followed by the opinion of legal luminaries on the verdict.
The ACB court is also expected to deliver its verdict on Friday on CID’s petition seeking five-day custody of Naidu to interrogate him further in the case.
Naidu is currently lodged in the Rajamahendravaram Central Prison.
The counsel for the petitioner, Harish Salve, reiterated the original argument that the investigating agency should have sought permission from a competent authority before probing a public servant for alleged offences committed in the discharge of official duties, according to Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA).
According to him, though a regular enquiry was ordered by the ACB, nothing was elicited during the tenure of the petitioner as chief minister.
The court heard the counsel’s arguments before making the position clear on whether prior permission was required in this case.
The court, looking back at past rulings, said: “When the public servant is alleged to have committed the offence of fabrication of record or misappropriation of public fund, etc., it cannot be said that he acted in discharge of his official duties because it is not the official duty of the public servant to fabricate the false records and misappropriate the public funds etc. in furtherance of or in the discharge of his official duties.”
The court pointed out that “the official capacity only enables him to fabricate the record or misappropriate the public fund, etc. It does not mean that it is integrally connected or inseparably interlinked with the crime committed in the course of the same transaction”.
By virtue of the aforesaid rulings, the court said about the need for prior approval: “…the legislative intent in its enactment of Section 17A of the PC Act is only protect public servants in bona fide discharge of official functions or duties. However, when the act of the public servant is ex facie criminal or constitutes an offence, prior approval would not be necessary.”
The court also examined Parliament’s rationale for the wording of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Prior approval under Section 17A was required only where the alleged offence was relatable to “any recommendation made or decision taken by the public servant”.
This seems to be the heart and soul of the above section, the court said, adding that it was clear that the Parliament had consciously used the above words.
According to the court, if the intention of the Parliament was to impose a pre-condition that every enquiry, inquiry or investigation into every allegation of offence against a public servant required prior sanction, the words “where the alleged offence is relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken by the public servant” ought not have been there.
Explaining its contention, the court said: “If the above words are omitted, it would have meant that no police officer shall conduct any enquiry or inquiry or investigation into any offence alleged to have been committed by a public servant under this Act in the discharge of his official function or duties without the previous approval of the competent authority.”
By virtue of the above, the court said, “It is clear that the intention of the Parliament was not to insist for previous approval in relation to enquiry, inquiry or investigation only in relation to every offence committed by the public servant”.
The court gave the following reasons for its decision on the quash petition:
