The Supreme Court will hear former AP Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu's plea for quashing of FIR in the skill development scam case. Another petition against Andhra Pradesh HC's order denying him anticipatory bail in the FiberNet scam case will also be heard by Supreme Court.A bench comprising Justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela M Trivedi will hear the matter. Today is the fifth day of hearing...
The Supreme Court will hear former AP Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu's plea for quashing of FIR in the skill development scam case. Another petition against Andhra Pradesh HC's order denying him anticipatory bail in the FiberNet scam case will also be heard by Supreme Court.
A bench comprising Justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela M Trivedi will hear the matter. Today is the fifth day of hearing in the case.
Follow this page for live-updates.
Luthra (about interim bail): We have made a specific prayer.
Bose J: We have heard the main matter and we'll deliver the judgment.
#SupremeCourtofIndia reserves verdict on #ChandrababuNaidu's plea for quashing of FIR in skill development scam case; no interim bail for Naidu.
Salve: He is a 73-year-old man who has been inside for 40 days. I have a request for interim bail. If you rule against me, he can go back. 2016-17 inquiry...govt's lament was that nothing came of it. Now, in 2021, they are grasping at straws.
Luthra supports this request.
Salve: Let me assume I'm wrong: in any case, you got all these orders based on Section 17A which will have to go. And, if the remand order goes, the man has to be set at liberty.
Salve: Not a single judgment that says you can walk up to a special court without any public servant...Jurisdiction is to try a case...Conviction may just be under IPC, I'm not contesting that. My respectful submission is that today if there's no S17A for a single public servant, everything goes.
Salve: If I am right, where are we? I have made two points: First, there's a composite charge-sheet. This kind of a rumbled up argument...The whole thing goes. There are a littany of public servants and not a one single S17A.
Salve: Look at how absurd State's argument is. They are saying S 17A applies only to innocent people. So essentially the entire inquiry has to be conducted first to determine their innocence. They have turned provision on its head.
Salve: FIR is lodged for helping someone steal money from the bank. Without PC Act, he would have gone in. This paragraph is extremely instructive. (Referring to A Sreenivasa Reddy)
Salve: Section 17A must be taken at the first instance. In today's political context, it might be difficult because after an election, they're in a hurry to...But this is the protection that statute grants. Unless my learned friend goes to the extent of saying that prosecuting an opposition leader is a vested right of [current govt].
Salve: Second point my learned friend makes is this old package, new package. If you charge someone under Section 11 read with Section 13A, what will you do? Take half a sanction under S17A? Either it applies to offences post or investigation initiated post.
Salve reads out from Rattan Lal (1964) -
"...Under Article 20 of the Constitution, no person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of a law in force at the time of the commission of the act charged as an offence, nor be subjected to a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence. But an ex post facto law which only mollifies the rigour of criminal law does not fall within the said prohibition."