Alleged Actions Could Not Be Considered As Being Carried Out In Good Faith: AP High Court Rejects N Chandrababu Naidu's Plea To Quash FIR In Skill Development Scam

A Bench of Justice K. Sreenivasa Reddy held that the alleged actions by Naidu could not be considered as being carried out in good faith or in the execution of his official duties as Chief Minister. The Court added, “Section 17A of the PC Act cannot be made applicable in those cases where the act of the public servant that amounts to an offence appears on the face of it lacking in good faith. Issuing public building license and no objection certificates cannot be said to be acts done in good faith.” As a result, the Court ruled that prior approval from the competent authority was not required for the investigation into the alleged offenses.

The Court further added, “Use or utilization of public funds by a public servant under the colour of authority but really for his own benefit cannot be considered as an act done in discharge of his official functions or duties. Such an act is not entitled to get the protection under Section 17A of the Act.”

Senior Advocate Harish Salve and Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra appearing for Naidu, pointed out that the FIR was registered on December 19, 2021, while Naidu was named as an accused on September 7, 2023. They argued that Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act had not been followed, as the required permission from the competent authority had not been obtained.

They further contended that Naidu's involvement was simply a result of a 'regime revenge investigation,' where the state's machinery was being used to apply criminal law forcefully. They also argued that even if all the accusations were taken into account, there was no prima facie case against Naidu. It was further emphasized that Section 17A prohibits the investigation of a public servant for actions performed in the discharge of official duties without prior approval.

On the opposing side, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi and Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar, representing the State Criminal Investigation Department (CID), argued that the proceedings should not be dismissed as the investigation was in its early stages. Rohatgi contended that Section 17A did not apply because Naidu, as the head of the executive government, was allegedly involved in a deliberate scam that misappropriated Rs.370 crores of public funds. He also stated that prior approval under Section 17A was not required for investigations before July 26, 2018, when the provision was added to the PC Act.

Additional Advocate General Ponnavolu Sudhakar Reddy emphasized that the investigation into the case had begun well before Section 17A was inserted into the Act, and therefore, there was no legal impediment to the police conducting the investigation.

In conclusion, the Court found that Naidu's actions could not be considered to have been carried out in good faith or in the performance of his official duties. The Court said that “this Court is of the opinion that in respect of the disputed questions of fact, a mini trial cannot be conducted by this Court in a petition filed under Section 482 CrPC. The investigating agency, pursuant to the registration of the crime in the year 2021, examined as many as more than 140 witnesses and collected documents to the tune of more than 4000. Profligacy is such an esoteric subject, where investigation has to be carried with utmost proficiency by the professionals. At this stage, where the investigation is on fulcrum of attaining finalty, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned proceedings.” Consequently, Naidu's plea was dismissed for lacking merit.

Cause Title: Nara Chandrababu Naidu v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Click here to read/download the Order