Express News Service
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday refused to consider the urgent listing of former Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu seeking to quash the FIR registered by Andhra Pradesh CID wherein he was arraigned as an accused of allegedly misappropriating funds in the multi-crore skill development scam asking the leader to mention his petition on Tuesday.
The Former Chief Minister was named as accused 37 in the FIR which was booked under sections 166, 167, 418, 240, 465, 468, 471, 477A, 409, 201 and 120B IPC read with sections 12, 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. (“PC Act”) on December 9, 2021.
A bench of CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Mishra turned down Naidu’s plea for urgent listing after it was mentioned by Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra.
“This is related to the State of Andhra Pradesh where the opposition is being curbed…he was arrested on September 8,” Luthra said.
Refusing to consider out of turn mentioning, CJI asked him to mention it again on Tuesday.“Come tomorrow in the mentioning list,” CJI told Luthra.
Chandrababu Naidu approached the top court against Andhra Pradesh HC on September 22, 2023 order of refusing to quash the FIR and the order dated September 10, 2023, of judicial remand.
Remarking that the court while considering a quashing petition could not conduct a mini-trial, Justice K Sreenivas Reddy while noting that the probe agency after the crime had not only examined 140 witnesses but had also collected over 4,000 documents had said that he was not inclined to interfere with the probe which was on the fulcrum of attaining finality.
TDP leader in his plea has argued that he was arrested in an illegal manner and deprived of his liberty motivated only by political reasons by disregarding the fact that all actions were initiated without obtaining the sanction mandated by section 17A of the PC Act.
Section 17A of the PC Act mandates police officers to seek prior approval from a competent authority before conducting an inquiry or investigation into an offence related to any recommendations made or decision taken by a public servant in the discharge of his public functions. The former minister in his plea has argued that the approval should have been taken from the Governor in his case.
“Both the initiation of the enquiry and the registration of the FIR is non-est as both have been initiated and the investigation continues till date without a mandatory approval under Section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The present scenario of regime revenge and political vendetta is exactly what Section 17-A seeks to restrict by protecting innocent persons. The initiation of investigation without such approval vitiates the entire proceedings since inception and the same is a jurisdictional error,” the plea stated.
Calling the allegations against which were relatable to the decision taken in the discharge of his official duties as CM as “unfounded”, he in his plea has said that he was suddenly named in the FIR registered twenty-one months ago. To further demonstrate the extent of political vendetta against him, he in his plea has also referred to the belated application dated September 11, 2023, relating to the grant of police custody which names him and his family members.
“This motivated campaign of harassment has been allowed to continue by the courts below unabated despite patent illegality in the FIR,” he has said in his plea contending that AP CID is acting at the behest of the ruling party in order to hurt his party’s chances in the state election which are due in 2024. “The CID is threatening the officers and others to implicate him, his family and the Party,” the plea said.
The judge in his 68-page order had also said that it was thus not appropriate to meddle with the investigation at the FIR stage. Rejecting the arguments related to receipt of prior sanction under section 17A of the PC Act, the judge said, “Section 17A of the PC Act cannot be made applicable in those cases where the act of the public servant that amounts to an offence appears on the face of it lacking in good faith.
Issuing public building licenses and no objection certificates cannot be said to be acts done in good faith. Where the performance of public function is grossly improper, the safe conclusion at least at the initial stage can be that it was in anticipation for in consequence of accepting an undue advantage from the beneficiary.” After HC’s September 22 order, AP CID was further granted two days of custody.”
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday refused to consider the urgent listing of former Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu seeking to quash the FIR registered by Andhra Pradesh CID wherein he was arraigned as an accused of allegedly misappropriating funds in the multi-crore skill development scam asking the leader to mention his petition on Tuesday.
The Former Chief Minister was named as accused 37 in the FIR which was booked under sections 166, 167, 418, 240, 465, 468, 471, 477A, 409, 201 and 120B IPC read with sections 12, 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. (“PC Act”) on December 9, 2021.
A bench of CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Mishra turned down Naidu’s plea for urgent listing after it was mentioned by Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra. googletag.cmd.push(function() {googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-8052921-2’); });
“This is related to the State of Andhra Pradesh where the opposition is being curbed…he was arrested on September 8,” Luthra said.
Refusing to consider out of turn mentioning, CJI asked him to mention it again on Tuesday.“Come tomorrow in the mentioning list,” CJI told Luthra.
Chandrababu Naidu approached the top court against Andhra Pradesh HC on September 22, 2023 order of refusing to quash the FIR and the order dated September 10, 2023, of judicial remand.
Remarking that the court while considering a quashing petition could not conduct a mini-trial, Justice K Sreenivas Reddy while noting that the probe agency after the crime had not only examined 140 witnesses but had also collected over 4,000 documents had said that he was not inclined to interfere with the probe which was on the fulcrum of attaining finality.
TDP leader in his plea has argued that he was arrested in an illegal manner and deprived of his liberty motivated only by political reasons by disregarding the fact that all actions were initiated without obtaining the sanction mandated by section 17A of the PC Act.
Section 17A of the PC Act mandates police officers to seek prior approval from a competent authority before conducting an inquiry or investigation into an offence related to any recommendations made or decision taken by a public servant in the discharge of his public functions. The former minister in his plea has argued that the approval should have been taken from the Governor in his case.
“Both the initiation of the enquiry and the registration of the FIR is non-est as both have been initiated and the investigation continues till date without a mandatory approval under Section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The present scenario of regime revenge and political vendetta is exactly what Section 17-A seeks to restrict by protecting innocent persons. The initiation of investigation without such approval vitiates the entire proceedings since inception and the same is a jurisdictional error,” the plea stated.
Calling the allegations against which were relatable to the decision taken in the discharge of his official duties as CM as “unfounded”, he in his plea has said that he was suddenly named in the FIR registered twenty-one months ago. To further demonstrate the extent of political vendetta against him, he in his plea has also referred to the belated application dated September 11, 2023, relating to the grant of police custody which names him and his family members.
“This motivated campaign of harassment has been allowed to continue by the courts below unabated despite patent illegality in the FIR,” he has said in his plea contending that AP CID is acting at the behest of the ruling party in order to hurt his party’s chances in the state election which are due in 2024. “The CID is threatening the officers and others to implicate him, his family and the Party,” the plea said.
The judge in his 68-page order had also said that it was thus not appropriate to meddle with the investigation at the FIR stage. Rejecting the arguments related to receipt of prior sanction under section 17A of the PC Act, the judge said, “Section 17A of the PC Act cannot be made applicable in those cases where the act of the public servant that amounts to an offence appears on the face of it lacking in good faith.
Issuing public building licenses and no objection certificates cannot be said to be acts done in good faith. Where the performance of public function is grossly improper, the safe conclusion at least at the initial stage can be that it was in anticipation for in consequence of accepting an undue advantage from the beneficiary.” After HC’s September 22 order, AP CID was further granted two days of custody.”
