SC sets aside Andhra HC order, revives graft cases

The Supreme Court on Thursday revived several corruption cases in Andhra Pradesh, setting aside an “overly technical” Andhra Pradesh high court ruling that had terminated the proceedings, terming such an approach to be “nothing but a 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 that 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 undivided Andhra Pradesh in 2014, the then government had, in 2003, issued an order designating the ACB, Hyderabad, as a police station, and several PC Act cases were registered there. After the formation of Telangana, the reorganised Andhra Pradesh government issued a notification in 2016 shifting the ACB, Hyderabad, to Vijayawada. Subsequently, another order was passed in 2022 designating ACB, Vijayawada, as a police station, since Hyderabad was no longer part of Andhra Pradesh.

However, the high court adopted a technical view, holding that the old laws would remain applicable even after bifurcation. On this basis, FIRs registered with ACB, Vijayawada, between 2016 and 2020 were quashed.

“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,” the bench observed, pointing out that the Andhra Pradesh government’s 2016 clarification had made the position clear.

The court further 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 Supreme Court set aside the high court judgment and restrained it from entertaining any further challenges to FIRs on this ground. However, it left open to the accused all legal remedies to challenge chargesheets where investigations were complete.

The high court had earlier 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, therefore, lacked jurisdiction to register FIRs. It added that, in the absence of such a notification, the police officers who registered the FIRs had no authority to do so.

The apex court dismissed this reasoning, stating, “The reasoning of the high court—that a declaration by way of a notification must be published in the official gazette for due compliance with 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 further held that the finding that the 2022 clarificatory government order would not affect previously registered FIRs 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.