Chandrababu Naidu's Plea To Quash FIR : Live Updates From Supreme Court

Salve : High Courts are divided on this question. Some HCs have taken the view 17A must follow the date of offence, some other HCs have taken the view that 17A must follow the date of the FIR.

Harish Salve continuing arguments for Naidu.

In the remand report, it was said that though there was an earlier complaint, nothing was done. Remand court says 17A does not apply to date of offence.

The bench re-assembles.

Salve : There is an SOP published by Govt of India on how Sec 17A is to be applied. They have said that at every stage permission is to be taken.

The bench rises for lunch-break. Hearing will resume at 2 PM.

Salve : I just wanted to show the Court that this document has no relevance to the present case. If it was an inquiry which led to the registration of the present FIR, it would have been relevant.

Justice Trivedi : Did you challenge the remand order?

Salve : Yes

Salve : They didn't show there was a 2018 document. It was never shown to the remand court. The remand court records the contention that the offence is pre-2018.

Justice Trivedi : Where are the documents? Did the HC see?

Salve : There is the problem.

Justice Trivedi : What Rohatgi submitted last time was that inquiry started before 2018 amendment (which introduced Sec 17A).

Salve : First of all, that statement is factually wrong. It was not the inquiry which led to this FIR. It appears some inquiry was done, which was folded up. Thereafter, a fresh enquiry was done.

On the point of Section 17A, Salve cites the judgment in 1959 SCR 191 (regarding the applicability of amendment to procedure).

'Change in law of procedure applies retrospectively', he says the judgment held.