# Suneel Kumar Yadav v. C.B.I./A.C.B./Lucknow

- **Citation:** (2022) 2 ILRA 520
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-02-15
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 633 of 2020
- **Bench:** Manish Mathur
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/suneel-kumar-yadav-v-c-b-i-a-c-b-lucknow-48134
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Law-Amendment-
Prevention of Corruption Act-section 13
(1) (d) substituted by section 7 of 1988
Act-FIR, Chargesheet and charges were
framed much prior to amendment in Actnot
provided
whether
amendment
retrospective-if retrospective effect not
provided-provision of amendment will be
prospective-Petition dismissed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

520 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
petitioner in reference to FIR No. 63 of
2020, under Section 406 IPC, Polcie
Station Phoolbehad, District Kheri are
hereby quashed and set aside.
----------
(2022)02ILR A520
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 15.02.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 633 of 2020

Suneel Kumar Yadav ...Applicants
Versus
C.B.I./A.C.B./Lucknow ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicants:
Kuldeep Srivastava, Smt. Padma Verma

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
A.S.G., Anurag Kumar Singh

(A)
Criminal
Law-Amendment-
Prevention of Corruption Act-section 13
(1) (d) substituted by section 7 of 1988
Act-FIR, Chargesheet and charges were
framed much prior to amendment in Actnot
provided
whether
amendment
retrospective-if retrospective effect not
provided-provision of amendment will be
prospective-Petition dismissed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:-

1. T. Barai Vs Henry Ah Hoe & anr., reported in
1983 CRI.L.J. 164 SC

2. St. of Telang. Vs Managipet alias Mangipet
Sarveshwar Reddy reported in (2019) 19 SCC
87

3. St. of Raj. Vs Tejmal Choudhary passed in
Criminal Appeal No. 1647 of 2021

4. Akram Ansari Vs Chief Election Officer [(2008)
2 SCC 95];
5. K.R. Ramesh Vs C.B.I. & anr. [(2020) SCC
Online Kerala 2529].

6. G J Raja Vs Tejraj Surana [(2019) 19 SCC
469]

7. Hitendra Vishnu Thakur Vs St. of Mah. & ors.
[(1994) 4 SCC 602]
(Delivered by Hon'ble Manish Mathur, J.)

1. Instant petition under Section 482
of the Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the
petitioner for quashing of the impugned
order dated 20.01.2020 passed by the
learned court of Special Judge, Anti
Corruption, West, UP., Lucknow initiated
in case no. 2 of 2015 arising out of crime
no. RC006/2015/A/0002 under Sections 7
& 13(2) r/w 13 (1)(d) of Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred
to as 'the Act 1988').

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has submitted that the impugned order was
passed without considering the submissions
raised on behalf of the petitioner. It is
further submitted that the Prevention of
Corruption Act has lastly been amended
w.e.f. 26.07.2018 and Section 13(1)(d) of
the Act 1988 has been substituted by
Section 7 of the Act 1988. In Section
13(1)(d), the punishment provided was not
less than four years but which may extend
to ten years and shall also be liable to fine,
whereas by making an amendment, the
punishment which has been provided under
Section 7 of the Act 1988 is less than three
years but which may extend to seven years
and shall also be liable to fine. After the
amendment in the Act, the applicant has
moved an application for alteration of
charge in the light of Amendment Act,
1988 since Section 13(1)(d) of the Act
1988 has been omitted and prayed for
dropping of the charge under Section
2 All. Suneel Kumar Yadav Vs. C.B.I./A.C.B./Lucknow
521
13(1)(d) of the Act 1988. In support of his
submission,
learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner has relied upon the judgment in
the case of T. Barai v. Henry Ah Hoe and
another reported in 1983 CRI.L.J. 164 SC
on the issue if the punishment has been
made lesser in the subsequent statute, the
same will be applicable in the pending
cases.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel
for the CBI has submitted that there is no
illegality in the order passed by the Special
Judge, Anti-Corruption and has submitted
that the amendment has been made vide
notification dated 26.07.2018 and the same
is not retrospective. In the present case, the
FIR was lodged against the petitioner on
05.02.2015; the charge-sheet was filed on
20.03.2015 and the charges were framed on
08.08.2016, whereas the notification of
amendment has come into effect on
26.07.2018 and the amendment has not
been given retrospective effect and hence
the case of the present petitioner is
governed by the provisions of the Act,
which was in force prior to the amendment.
In support of his submission, learned
counsel has relied upon the judgment of the
Apex Court in the case of State of
Telangana v. Managipet alias Mangipet
Sarveshwar Reddy reported in (2019) 19
SCC 87.

4. After hearing the learned counsels
for the respective parties, it is found that
the judgment relied by learned counsel for
the applicant is not applicable in the present
case. The facts of that case were different
and the issue before the Apex Court was
with regard to the repugnancy between the
State law and the Union law and the
question to be decided was which law will
prevail and the provisions of the Prevention
of Food Adultration Act was under
challenge whereas the judgment relied by
learned counsel for the respondent in the
case of State of Telangana v. Managipet
alias Mangipet Sarveshwar Reddy (supra)
is on the issue which is on a point which is
under consideration in the present case and
the Apex Court in paragraph 37 has held as
under:-

"37. Mr. Guru Krishna Kumar
further refers to a Single Bench judgment
of
the
Madras
High
Court
in
M.
Soundararajan v. State through the Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and
Anti Corruption, Ramanathapuram20 to
contend that amended provisions of the Act
as amended by Act XVI of 2018 would be
applicable as the Amending Act came into
force before filing of the charge sheet. We
do not find any merit in the said argument.
In the aforesaid case, the learned trial
court applied amended provisions in the
Act which came into force on 26 th July,
2018 and acquitted both the accused from
charge under Section 13(1)(d) read with
13(2) of the Act. The High Court found that
the order of the trial court to apply the
amended provisions of the Act was not
justified and remanded the matter back
observing that the offences were committed
prior to the amendments being carried out.
In the present case, the FIR was registered
on 9th November, 2011 much before the
Act was amended in the year 2018.
Whether any offence has been committed or
not has to be examined in the light of the
provisions of the statute as it existed prior
to
the
amendment
carried
out
on
26.7.2018."

5. The Apex Court in the case of State of
Rajasthan vs. Tejmal Choudhary passed in
Criminal Appeal No. 1647 of 2021 vide its
judgment dated 16.12.2021, where the fact of
the case was that the FIR was lodged on
522 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
01.01.2018 against the respondents under
Section 13(1)(g) and 13(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 read with provisions of
IPC and by amendment in the year 2018,
Section 17A has been inserted which provides
for previous approval for initiation of any
proceedings and investigations against a public
servant in discharge of official functions. The
Apex Court has held that it is a cardinal
principal of construction that every statute is
prospective, unless it is expressly or by
necessary
implication
made
to
have
retrospective operation and has relied upon the
judgments in the case of Akram Ansari vs.
Chief Election Officer [(2008) 2 SCC 95];
K.R.
Ramesh
vs.
Central
Bureau
of
Investigation and another [(2020) SCC Online
Kerala 2529]. The judgment in the case of G J
Raja vs. Tejraj Surana [(2019) 19 SCC 469]
where the Apex Court followed the judgment
of Hitendra Vishnu Thakur vs. State of
Maharashtra and Ors. [(1994) 4 SCC 602]
and held that a statute which affect substantive
rights is presumed to be prospective in
operation unless made retrospective. The
relevant paragraph of the judgment in the case
of State of Rajasthan vs. Tejmal Choudhary
(supra) is reproduced hereinbelow:-

"11. It is a well settled principle of
interpretation that the legislative intent in the
enactment of a statute is to be gathered from
the express words used in the statue unless
the plain words literally construed give rise to
absurd results. This Court has to go by the
plain words of the statute to construe the
legislative intent, as very rightly argued by
Mr. Roy. It could not possibly have been the
intent of the legislature that all pending
investigations upto July, 2018 should be
rendered infructuous. Such an interpretation
could not possibly have been intended."

6. It is an undisputed fact in the present
case is that the FIR was lodged against the
petitioner on 05.02.2015; the charge-sheet
was filed on 20.03.2015 and the charges were
framed on 08.08.2016 that is much prior to
the amendment in the Act which has came
into effect since 26.07.2018. In the present
case, the proceedings uptil the framing of
charges was prior to the amendment and it is
not provided in the amendment which is
retrospective in effect and as per the law laid
down by the Apex Court in catena of
judgments as discussed above that if it is not
expressly provided that the provisions of the
amended Act will have retrospective effect,
the same shall be applicable prospectively
and the pending cases shall proceed as per the
pre-amended law as existed when the offence
is said to have been committed.

7. In so far as the present case is
concerned, the amendment does not help the
petitioner in any manner, which may entitle
him for grant of prayer i.e. dropping of the
charge under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act
1988. The petition lacks merit. Hence, this
Court finds no illegality in the order passed
by
the
learned
Special
Judge,
Anti
Corruption, West, UP., Lucknow and no
interference is required in the present petition
under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

8. Petition is dismissed accordingly.
----------

(2022)02ILR A522
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.12.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No.1081 of 2007

Mayank Agarwal & Anr. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties