Delhi High Court expounds amendments to Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018 do not have retrospective effect
The Delhi High Court in the case titled as Madhu Koda v. State through CBI has held that amendments to the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018 cannot be applied for offenses committed prior to the changes in the act and that it does not have retrospective effect.
The judgment was passed on 22 May 2020 by Honorable justice Vibhu Bhakru.
FACTS
Plea was filed by Ex-Jharkand CM Madhu Koda seeking to stay conviction order against him in a coal scam under sub-clauses (ii) and (iii) of clause (d) of sub-section (1) of section 13 read with sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
According to the appellant he wished to contest election to public offices, but is disqualified to do so on account of his conviction.
ARGUMENTS RAISED BY APPELLANT
The Appellant argued that there is neither any allegation nor any evidence to establish that the appellant had demanded any illegal gratification and therefore, the appellant’s conviction under Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act is ex-facie unsustainable.
Also, he submitted that the PC Act was amended with effect from 26th July 2018, and the provisions of Section 13(1)(d) stand deleted by virtue of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018. He submitted that the allegations made against the appellant no longer constitute an offense and, therefore, he is entitled to be acquitted by virtue of the doctrine of beneficial construction. He relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in T. Barai v. enry AH Hoe and Anr: (1983) 1 SCC 177 in support of his contention.
DECISION OF THE COURT
The court held that though it has the power to stay the conviction it is settled law that power is to be exercised in exceptional circumstances- where the court is convinced that by not staying the conviction it would lead to injustice and irreversible consequences.
According to court, It is “unable to accept that the PC (Amendment) Act, 2018 seeks to repeal the provisions of Section 13(1)(d) of the Act, as it existed prior to 26.07.2018 ab initio. Men's rea is an integral part of the offense under Sub-clause (ii) of Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. The use of the word ‘abuse’ in the said Sub-clause indicates so. Thus, there is no reason to assume that the legislative intent of repealing Section 13 of the PC Act was to exclude the said offense from the scope of the PC Act with retrospective effect.”
However, at the same time by virtue of being convicted of an offense after trial, the appellant is not qualified to run for public office and on the contention of the appellant that it leads to injustice and irreversible consequences- the court held that it must also consider wider ramifications of the same.
The court relied on the judgment of The Supreme Court in Public Interest Foundation v. Union of India where Supreme Court has referred to the Law Commission, 244th report where it recommended that a person against whom the charges have been framed be disqualified from standing for elections.
The court ultimately held that it cannot allow Appellant to contest election for any public office, till he is finally acquitted.
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Share this Document :Picture Source :
