On 29.11.2022, the Allahabad High Court in the case of Dr. Syed Fareed Haider Rizvi v. CBI comprising of Justice D.K. Singh in the Petition under Section 482 of the Code of criminal Procedure expounds that Prevent of Corruption Amending Act No. 16 of 2018 would not be applicable for an offence which was committed prior to amendment being carried out. Whether any offence has been committed or not has to be examined in the light of the provisions of the statute as existed prior to the Amendment carried out on 26.07.2018 in the PC Act,
Facts of the Case
The applicant was a public servant, employed/posted as District Development Officer, Balrampur during the years 2007 to 2009; at the relevant time, large scale of financial bungling, gross irregularities and misappropriation of public funds allocated under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme was reported to have been done by the then government officers/officials in criminal conspiracy and connivance with the private suppliers in purchase of stationery and other materials.
Public Interest Litigation Petition was filed before the Court regarding large scale corruption, bungling and misappropriation of NREGS funds by the Block Development Officers and other government officers/officials in connivance with the private suppliers in the centralized purchase of stationery and other items worth Rs. 1,81,18,602/-
Court, vide judgment and order issued a Mandamus directing the CBI to investigate the abuse and misappropriation of funds allocated under the NREGS with regard to seven districts of State of Uttar Pradesh, namely, Balrampur, Gonda, Mahoba, Sonbhadra, Sant Kabir Nagar, Mirzapur and Kushinagar during the years 2007 to 2010 and take appropriate action and prosecute the persons involved, in accordance with law.
The CBI after conducting a thorough investigation, lodged the FIR and filed charge-sheet under Section 173(2) CrPC dated 15.11.2018 under Section 120-B read with Sections 420 and 409 IPC and Sections 13(2) read with Sections 13(1)(d) of the PC Act and substantive offences thereof, whereas The CBI found the applicant as one of the architects of the crime, who was posted at the relevant time as District Development Officer, Balrampur. For the non-appearance nonbailable warrants of arrest were issued against the Applicant
Applicant Contentions
The Counsel appearing for the Applicant contends before the Court that without seeking sanction from the competent authority, the order, taking cognizance on charge-sheet and further proceedings, including issuance of non-bailable warrants of arrest, are nullity.
In view of amendment in PC Act the sanction for prosecution of a person, who was a public servant at the time of commission of the offence, is must. Further it was submitted that the cognizance was taken on 23.11.2018 and the amendment in [ 4 ] Section 19 PC Act received President's assent on 26.07.2018 and published in the official gazette on the same day, and it came into force with effect from 26.07.2018 itself. Since the order of cognizance has been passed after the amendment in Section 19 PC Act came into effect with effect from 26.7.2018, the same is bad in law, and the entire subsequent proceedings after cognizance are nullity.
Respondent- CBI Contentions
Respondent - CBI has submitted that the amendment in Section 19 PC Act (Amending Act No. 16 of 2018) has no application in respect of the applicant inasmuch as the alleged offence was committed by the applicant and co-accused during the years 2008 to 2010. The Amending Act will have prospective effect and would be applicable in respect of the offences which were/are committed after the amendment came into force in Section 19 PC Act. It will have no effect on a government servant who got retired before the Amendment came into force. In the present case, the applicant allegedly committed the offence before 26.07.2018. The learned counsel has, therefore, submitted that the application has no merit and substance and the same is liable to rejected.
Further, the Counsel contends that the CBI undertook the investigation in compliance of the Mandamus issued by this Court passed in Public Interest Litigation Petition.
COURT OBSERVATION
The Court in its observation reiterates that The relevant date for applicability of law in respect of a crime would be the date of commission of the crime. Subsequent amendment in the statute would not govern the investigation and prosecution of an accused for an offence which was committed before the Amendment in the statute came into force and Amending Act No. 16 of 2018 would not be applicable for an offence which was committed prior to amendment being carried out. Whether any offence has been committed or not has to be examined in the light of the provisions of the statute as existed prior to the Amendment carried out on 26.07.2018 in the PC Act.
Therefore, Court rejected the application and However, the Court granted the 4 days time to the applicant to surrender and apply for regular bail and if does so, his application for regular bail shall be considered and decided expeditiously, in accordance with law.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
