Changes to Prevention of Corruption Act does not apply to the prosecuted’
11/01/2020, SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT ,BENGALURU
The High Court of Karnataka has held that the amendments made to the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, making it mandatory to take prior sanctions, both to conduct investigation as well as prosecution, of even retired public servants is “prospective” in nature.
The benefit of the amendments, which were notified on July 26, 2018, is not available to retired public servants who were already prosecuted as per the earlier provisions of the Act, which did not prescribe requirement of prior sanction for prosecuting retired public servant as mandatory, the court said in two separate judgments.
The court passed the verdicts while dismissing petitions filed by retired public servants, who were investigated and prosecuted by the CBI, the Lokayukta police or the ACB. The petitioners had filed applications before the respective jurisdictional courts claiming that the amended provisions of Section 17A (prior sanction for investigation) and Section 19 (prior sanction for prosecution) are applicable “retrospectively” and hence the prosecution against them cannot be continued as there was no prior sanction obtained for investigation or their prosecution.
Justice P.S. Dinesh Kumar, while dismissing a petition filed by T.N. Bettaswamaiah, retired engineer who was prosecuted for possessing assets disproportionate to his known source of income, said that amended provisions can’t be interpreted as “retrospective.”
“A statute, which not only changes the procedure but also creates new rights and liabilities, shall be construed to be prospective in operation unless otherwise provided either expressly or by necessary implication. A careful reading of Section 17A as also Section 19 do not contain any express provision to show that they are retrospective in nature nor it is discernible by application,” the court said.
Pointing out that apex court had laid down that anti-corruption law has to be interpreted in such a fashion as to strengthen fight against corruption and where two constructions are eminently reasonable, the courts have to accept the one that seeks to eradicate corruption, the court said.
Justice B.A. Patil held that non-applicability of amended provisions to the petitioners would not amount to violation of Article 21 (protection of life and personal liberty) as they were prosecuted applying the provisions of the PC Act.
Referring to the apex court’s verdicts and the notification has enforced the amendments with effect from July 26, 2018, the xourt said that “it is not open to the court by way of interpretation to give retrospective effect to such provision.”
11/01/2020, SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT ,BENGALURU
The High Court of Karnataka has held that the amendments made to the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, making it mandatory to take prior sanctions, both to conduct investigation as well as prosecution, of even retired public servants is “prospective” in nature.
The benefit of the amendments, which were notified on July 26, 2018, is not available to retired public servants who were already prosecuted as per the earlier provisions of the Act, which did not prescribe requirement of prior sanction for prosecuting retired public servant as mandatory, the court said in two separate judgments.
The court passed the verdicts while dismissing petitions filed by retired public servants, who were investigated and prosecuted by the CBI, the Lokayukta police or the ACB. The petitioners had filed applications before the respective jurisdictional courts claiming that the amended provisions of Section 17A (prior sanction for investigation) and Section 19 (prior sanction for prosecution) are applicable “retrospectively” and hence the prosecution against them cannot be continued as there was no prior sanction obtained for investigation or their prosecution.
Justice P.S. Dinesh Kumar, while dismissing a petition filed by T.N. Bettaswamaiah, retired engineer who was prosecuted for possessing assets disproportionate to his known source of income, said that amended provisions can’t be interpreted as “retrospective.”
“A statute, which not only changes the procedure but also creates new rights and liabilities, shall be construed to be prospective in operation unless otherwise provided either expressly or by necessary implication. A careful reading of Section 17A as also Section 19 do not contain any express provision to show that they are retrospective in nature nor it is discernible by application,” the court said.
Pointing out that apex court had laid down that anti-corruption law has to be interpreted in such a fashion as to strengthen fight against corruption and where two constructions are eminently reasonable, the courts have to accept the one that seeks to eradicate corruption, the court said.
Justice B.A. Patil held that non-applicability of amended provisions to the petitioners would not amount to violation of Article 21 (protection of life and personal liberty) as they were prosecuted applying the provisions of the PC Act.
Referring to the apex court’s verdicts and the notification has enforced the amendments with effect from July 26, 2018, the xourt said that “it is not open to the court by way of interpretation to give retrospective effect to such provision.”
