When Does Enquiry Commence Under Prevention Of Corruption Act? Supreme Court Judges Differ In Chandrababu Naidu Case

In the Chandrababu Naidu case, the Supreme Court division bench, apart from disagreeing on the retrospective application of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988(PC Act), also differed on the point of time for the commencement of enquiry under the PC Act.

The issue was whether the enquiry in the case could be deemed to have commenced from 05.06.2018 when the Director General of the Anti­-Corruption Bureau wrote to DSP, CIU, ACB, Vijayawada to conduct a Regular Enquiry into the complaints against the Andhra Pradesh State Skill Development Corporation (APSSDC). The relevance of this date is that it is prior to the date of commencement of the 2018 amendment (which came into effect from 26.07.208) as per which Section 17A was added to the PC Act. It may be noted that the FIR in the case was registered on 09.12.2021.

While Justice Aniruddha Bose took the view that enquiry cannot be deemed to have commenced from 05.06.2018, Justice Trivedi disagreed.

Observation by the Judges

According to Bose J. a request to conduct an enquiry by itself cannot be the starting point of the enquiry under the provision of PC Act to bypass the restriction postulated therein.

Bose J., explained the meaning of enquiry, inquiry or investigation to hold that the letter dated 05.06.2018 doesn't initiate the enquiry. To this effect, Para 13 of the Bose J., judgment is meaningful:

“In ordinary perception, “enquiry” by a police officer would imply positive exercise for searching certain details or particulars pertaining to allegations of commission of an offence by an accused person or a set of accused persons. “Inquiry” is defined in Section 2 (g) of the 1973 and implies inquiry conducted under the Code by a Magistrate or Court. Similarly, “investigation” in terms of Section 2 (h) of the same Code includes all the proceedings conducted thereunder for collection of evidence by a police officer or a person authorised by a Magistrate in that behalf.”

Bose J. then provided reasons why a letter dated 05.06.2018 couldn't be deemed to have initiated the enquiry against Naidu.

“The nature of actions undertaken by the State after 05.06.2018 constitutes neither inquiry nor investigation, as no step under the 1973 Code was taken by the State prior to the year 2021. If that is the meaning attributed to this expression, the letter of 05.06.2018 or the earlier letter from taxing authority dated 14.05.2018 cannot be construed to be the commencing point of any enquiry. These were requests for starting an enquiry, which obviously did not commence prior to the aforesaid dates in the year 2021. Thus, on this point I cannot accept the finding of the High Court that a regular enquiry was already initiated on 05.06.2018.”, Bose J. observed.

Justice Trivedi took a different view on this aspect by relying on the Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Department of Personnel& Training) dated 3rd September 2021 for processing of cases under Section 17A, to hold that “Enquiry” means any action taken, for verifying as to whether the information received by the Police Officer pertains to the commission of an offence under the Act. Meaning thereby, the letter dated 05.06.2018 suggests that the enquiry was initiated from the date of the letter and not from the date of registration of FIR dated 09.12.21.

According to Justice Trivedi, the enquiry was initiated against Naidu before S. 17A came into effect, and while giving it a prospective application, Trivedi J., noted that the new provision of S.17A couldn't become a protective shield for Naidu, and hence a previous sanction to prosecute Naidu in relation to the offence committed before the commencement of S.17A is not required under the PC Act to initiate an enquiry against Naidu.

Case Details