Its stance
The provision of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (“P.C. Act”), i.e., Section 17A, is not retrospective, stated by The Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Section 17A was inserted into the Prevention of Corruption Act on July 26, 2018. There cannot be any inquiry and investigation through this provision without prior sanction from the statutory authority.
As per Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice J.K. Maheshwari, while allowing the appeals, ruled, “The learned Counsel appearing for respondent does not explicitly dispute with the proposition of law after that pointing out that the Section 17A does not have retrospective operation.”
Meanwhile, an FIR had been filed on 1/1/2018 before the legislation amended the said provision. The sine qua non-involved in the appeals was whether Section 17A of the P.C. Act calls for an investigation that had taken place before Section 17A came into existence.
As per my interpretation, The Supreme Court also opined that Leave was granted. The appeals are allowed, and the appalling judgment and order in the said matter were aside in terms of the signed order. Pending application(s) w.r.t this matter, if any, stand disposed of.
OPINIONS
The Court unanimously inferred that it is an essential principle of interpretation for every statute to be prospective (i.e., forward flowing) unless there was an expression or necessary allocations made to have retrospective mechanisms. There ought to be a presumption against retrospectivity in the said matter.
CASE LAWS
 As per  Akram Ansari vs. Chief Election Officer (2008) 2 SCC 95, the Court observed that presumption against retrospectivity may be argued by essential questions of law. The Court put forth that Kerala High Court also depended on Akram Ansari in K.R. Ramesh vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2020).
The Court inferred that the tool of legal fiction could also be used to introduce events from the past.
Moreover, the matter was tabled by the Court on Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v. the State of Maharashtra (1994) 4 SCC 602, where it was opined that a statute that not only changes the procedure but also creates new rights and liabilities should be comprehended to be prospective in operation unless otherwise provided either expressly or impliedly have implication.
As filled by Adv, the Court also took on GJ Raja vs. Tejraj Surana (2019) 19 SCC 469. Saurav Roy, the counsel, advocated on behalf of the appellant.
It was relied on in State of Telangana v. Managipet alias Mangipet Sarveshwar Reddy 2019 (19) SCC 87, that this Court rejected the arguments that amended the provisions of the P.C. Act would apply to an FIR, registered before the said amended provision came into force.
Case Title: State of Rajasthan v. Tejmal Choudhary
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1647 OF 2021
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 158
Case reference as follows:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INDIRA BANERJEE; J.K. MAHESHWARI, J.J. December 16, 2021
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1647 OF 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4818 of 2021) WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1649 OF 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4939 of 2021) AND
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1648 OF 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4830 of 2021)Â
State of RAJASTHAN VERSUS AJMAL CHOUDHARY
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 17A – Section 17A does not have the retrospective operation
Interpretation of Statutes – Retrospectivity – Every statute is prospective, unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have a retrospective operation.
Published By – Vanshu Mehra
Editted By – Subbuthai Padma
