The Supreme Court on Thursday revived scores of corruption cases in Andhra Pradesh by setting aside a decision of the Andhra Pradesh high court which adopted a “hyper technical” approach to terminate criminal proceedings, terming such an approach to be nothing but “travesty of justice”.
A bench of justices MM Sundresh and Satish Chandra Sharma said, “We are dealing with a set of cases where, the FIRs registered, for offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act, have been quashed, which left the investigation(s) being nipped in the bud in some cases, while, in the others, criminal proceedings stood terminated. In our considered view, the approach of the High Court is nothing but a travesty of justice.”
The judgment of the court came on an appeal filed by the Joint Director, Anti Corruption Bureau (Rayalseema) aggrieved by the AP high court decision passed last year which quashed PC Act cases registered with ACB, Vijayawada holding that it is not a “police station”.
The ACB was represented by senior advocates Siddharth Luthra and Sidharth Agarwal suggesting how the high court failed to understand the practical realities pursuant to the bifurcation of the state.
Prior to the bifurcation of the undivided Andhra Pradesh in 2014, the erstwhile AP government had in 2003 passed a similar order designating ACB Hyderabad as a police station and several PC cases came to be registered with it. After the new state of Telangana was carved out, the new state of Andhra Pradesh issued a notification in 2016 shifting the ACB Hyderabad to ACB, VIjayawada. Subsequently, another order was issued in 2022 designating ACB, Vijayawada as a police station. This was done as Hyderabad was no longer part of the reorganised AP state.
{{/usCountry}}Prior to the bifurcation of the undivided Andhra Pradesh in 2014, the erstwhile AP government had in 2003 passed a similar order designating ACB Hyderabad as a police station and several PC cases came to be registered with it. After the new state of Telangana was carved out, the new state of Andhra Pradesh issued a notification in 2016 shifting the ACB Hyderabad to ACB, VIjayawada. Subsequently, another order was issued in 2022 designating ACB, Vijayawada as a police station. This was done as Hyderabad was no longer part of the reorganised AP state.
{{/usCountry}}However, the high court took a technical view as it was convinced that the old laws will remain applicable even after bifurcation. On this ground, the FIRs registered with ACB, Vijayawada between 2016 and 2020 were quashed by the HC.
“.In our considered view, the high court has completely misdirected itself while interpreting the law. The high court took undue pains to ensure that the FIRs are quashed.” said the bench. It pointed out that following the clarification issued by the AP government in 2016, the position was made abundantly clear.
Further, the court said, “If, on a hyper-technical ground, the FIRs are quashed, the high court is duty-bound to lay down the law with respect to the jurisdiction that otherwise exists.”
The judgment set aside the HC judgment and restrained the high court from entertaining anny more challenges to FIRs on this ground. However, the court left it open for the accused to avail all remedies under law to challenge the chargesheet filed against them where investigation was complete.
The HC held that the ACB, Central Investigation Unit, Vijayawada was not notified as a police station under Section 2(s) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and thus lacked jurisdiction to register the FIRs.
The high court had held that in the absence of a notification under Section 2(s) of the CrPC, the police station, to which the police officers who registered the FIRs belong to, do not have any jurisdiction to register the same.
The top court dismissed this finding and said, “The reasoning of the high court, that a declaration by way of a notification has to be published in the official gazette for due compliance of Section 2(s) of the CrPC, 1973, is, to say the least, unacceptable. One has to see the substance and due compliance, in spirit.”
It said the finding that the subsequent clarificatory government order of 2022 will not affect the FIRs registered was “totally untenable and against the basic canons of law”.
“In our considered view, the high court took undue pains to ensure that the FIRs are quashed. When a government order is issued by way of a clarification, there is no question of any retrospective application,” the bench said.