Chandrababu Naidu's Case : Live Updates From Supreme Court

Bose J: Section 17A prohibits certain action by prosecution at given point of time. Offence may have taken place at an earlier date, but when you want to take action with respect to that after this provision has come, the bar might be attracted. This is the argument.

Rohatgi takes court through various judgments in support of his contentions.

Rohatgi: What is wrong with them? It cannot be argued that Supreme Court should become court of first instance.

Trivedi J (smiling): Tomorrow you'll be on other side.

Rohatgi: I admit. Somehow this tendency has occurred. 

Rohatgi: Ultimately, judicial conscience of court will be shocked by material placed in the counter-affidavit. Therefore, this is not a case where discretion under Section 482 CrPC ought to be exercised.

Rohatgi: Is this a case for discretion under S 482? That's the ultimate question.

Rohatgi: This court or a S 482 court should refuse...S 482 is discretionary...it's not a suit for possession...If discretionary reliefs are prayed for, there are principles to decide how such discretion ought to be exercised.

Rohatgi repeats his earlier submission that this is not 'regime revenge' as Sr Adv Harish Salve had argued on behalf of Naidu.

"Probes have also been initiated into allegations by various central agencies," Rohatgi points out.

Rohatgi: It's good to have a debate, but this is not a case where the stage to have this debate has arisen. Same police is investigation PC and non-PC Act offences, with no difference in investigation. How will FIR be quashed?

Rohatgi: Today it's a simple case...We are at a very nascent stage...Whether there's discharge or not...These issues have not arisen. Does FIR make out cognizable offences? That's the simple question...

Rohatgi: Today it's a simple case...We are at a very nascent stage...Whether there's discharge or not...These issues have not arisen. Does FIR make out cognizable offences? That's the simple question...