Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
A.Rajasekhar Gowd vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 20 December, 2022
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI
MAIN CASE No.Crl.P.No.10145 of 2022
PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl. Office
ORDER
No DATE Note
01 20.12.2022 RRR, J
The petitioner is sole accused in C.C.No.24
of 2022, on the file of Special Judge for CBI Cases,
Kurnool, for the offences under Section 7 (a) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The petitioner has approached this Court to
quash the said case.
Crime No.02/RCT-CIU-ACB/2019 was
registered under Section 7 (a) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 by the Anti Corruption
Bureau of the State of Andhra Pradesh on
14.03.2019, against the petitioner, who was an
employee of the Central Government.
Subsequently, the case was entrusted to the
Central Bureau of Investigation, by way of
G.O.Ms.No.154 dated 27.11.2019, on the ground
that the consent under Section 6 of the Delhi
Special Police Establishment Act, which had been
withdrawn on 08.11.2018 had been restored on
06.06.2019. Thereafter, the Central Bureau of
Investigation had re-registered the case as Crime
No.RC0362020A0007 on 02.06.2020. After
investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the
Trial Court which took cognizance of the case as
C.C.No.24 of 2022.
Thereafter, the petitioner moved
Crl.M.P.No.10 of 2022 for discharge. This
application was dismissed on 09.12.2022.
Thereupon, the petitioner has moved this Court,
independently, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for
quashing the case.
Sri P. S. Rajasekhar, the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner would submit that the
very registration of the case and the investigation
of the case itself is flawed and without jurisdiction
and consequently, the Trial Court could not have
taken cognizance of the case. He would submit
that the initial registration to the case by the Anti
Corruption Bureau of State is impermissible as the
petitioner against whom the case has been
registered, is a Central Government employee and
the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988, do not permit the Anti Corruption Bureau of
the State to register such a complaint against a
Central Government employee. He relies upon a
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Government of NCT of Delhi vs. Union of India1.
Sri P. S. Rajasekhar, the learned counsel for
the petitioner would also submit that the alleged
offence is said to have taken place while the
consent given by the State of Andhra Pradesh,
under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police
Establishment Act had been withdrawn and grant
of fresh consent under Section 6 cannot operate
retrospectively, to clothe the investigating agency
2019 SCC Online SC 193
with the power and jurisdiction to investigate the
complaint made against the petitioner.
Sri P. S. Rajasekhar, the learned counsel for
the petitioner relies upon a judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kazi
Lhendup Dorji Vs. Central Bureau of
Investigation2, the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of M. Balakrishna
Reddy Vs. Director, Central Bureau of
Investigation, New Delhi3 as well as the judgment
of the Learned Single Judge of this Court dated
20.03.2020 in W.P.No.1999 of 2020 in the case of
A. S. Chandra Sekhar Reddy Vs. State of Andhra
Pradesh and others and a further judgment of the
Learned Single Judge of this Court dated
18.12.2019 in Crl.P.No.2906 of 2019 and batch
between O. Srinivasa Rao Vs. State of Andhra
Pradesh and others.
The learned Deputy Solicitor General
appearing for Central Bureau of Investigation
would submit that none of the judgments cover the
issue of investigation by Central Bureau of
Investigation in cases registered after consent is
restored. He would submit that all the judgments
cited before this Court were concerned with a
situation where investigation had commenced
before consent had been restored or where
investigation was continued after consent had been
withdrawn.
1994 SCC 116
( 2008) 4 SCC 409
He would submit that in such
circumstances, the judgment cited before this
Court would not be applicable. He would further
seek time for filing a comprehensive counter
affidavit in this regard.
In view of the judgment delivered by the
Learned Single Judge of this Court mentioned
above, holding that investigation by the Central
Bureau of Investigation in offences which are said
to have occurred before consent had been given,
cannot be gone into by the Central Bureau of
Investigation, it would be appropriate to stay all
further proceedings in C.C.No.24 of 2022 on the
file of the Special Judge for CBI Cases, Kurnool,
including the appearance of the petitioner, for a
period of eight (08) weeks.
Post on 23.01.2023.
Registry is directed to print the name of
learned Deputy Solicitor General for the 3rd
respondent.
_________
RRR, J
MJA
