SC sets aside Andhra Pradesh HC verdict nullifying FIRs in corruption cases

New Delhi, Jan 8 (PTI) The Supreme Court on Thursday set aside the Andhra Pradesh High Court verdict which nullified some FIRs lodged in corruption cases, saying the high court took "undue pains" to ensure that the FIRs are quashed.

Observing that the high court's approach was nothing but a "travesty of justice", a bench of Justices M M Sundresh and Satish Chandra Sharma said the high court shall not entertain any more challenges to the FIRs or the pending investigation in these cases.

It noted that the high court had undertaken the exercise solely on the issue of jurisdiction of the police station which registered the FIRs.

The apex court delivered its verdict on the appeals filed by the state's Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) and others challenging the high court's judgment of August last year.

The bench noted it was dealing with a set of cases where FIRs lodged for alleged offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act were quashed which left the investigations being nipped in the bud in some cases, while in others, criminal proceedings stood terminated.

"In our considered view, the approach of the high court is nothing but a travesty of justice. 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 bench said.

The top court referred to Section 2(s) of the erstwhile Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) which defines a police station.

It noted that a spate of FIRs were registered at the office of the ACB's Vijayawada police station between 2016 and 2020 for offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The bench said these FIRs were challenged by the persons arrayed as accused primarily on the ground that the ACB, Central Investigation Unit, Andhra Pradesh, Vijayawada police station, was not notified as a police station under Section 2(s) of the CrPC and, therefore, lacked jurisdiction to register the FIRs.

The high court had held that in the absence of a notification under Section 2(s) of the CrPC, the police station, to which the police officers who registered the FIRs belong to, do not have any jurisdiction to register the same.

"The reasoning of the high court, that a declaration by way of a notification has to be published in the official gazette for due compliance of Section 2(s) of the CrPC, 1973, is, to say the least, unacceptable. One has to see the substance and due compliance, in spirit," the top court said.

It said the finding that the subsequent clarificatory government order of 2022 will not affect the FIRs registered 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.

The 2022 government order pertained to the declaration of office of the joint director, Central Investigation Unit of ACB, Andhra Pradesh, Vijayawada, as the police station with jurisdiction over the entire state.

The bench noted that the government of India enacted the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014, carving out a new state Telangana through the bifurcation of the undivided state of Andhra Pradesh on March 1, 2014, and the Act came into force with effect from June 2, 2014.

"Accordingly, we have no hesitation in setting aside the impugned judgment," the bench said, adding, "However, we make it clear that the High Court of Andhra Pradesh shall entertain no more challenges to the FIRs." It granted liberty to the ACB to proceed with the investigation.

The bench was informed that in some cases, the chargesheets were already filed.

It granted liberty to the respondents to challenge the chargesheets, which were already filed and those which were yet to be filed, on other grounds.

"We further make it clear that in those cases where the investigation is still pending, the appellant(s) shall not take any coercive action, while the respondents herein are expected to lend their due cooperation," the bench said. PTI ABA ABA KSS KSS