AJL case: Hooda’s contention on amended PC Act dismissed

Bhartesh Singh Thakur

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, April 19

The CBI Special Court, Haryana, clarified that the amended Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act of 2018 “does not apply to the offences which have already taken place under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988”.

It added that “moreover, Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018, does not reveal any intention of destroying the earlier provisions and there is no intention to obliterate the earlier law”.

CBI Special Judge Dr Sushil Kumar Garg made these comments in the AJL plot allotment case, while dismissing the contention of former CM Bhupinder Singh Hooda that after the amendment in the PC Act, Section 13 (1) (d) stood repealed, which was related to abuse of official position.

The order, by which charges were framed against Hooda, was made public today.

Section 13 (1) (d) is an important ingredient in the case and Hooda even submitted the report of the select committee of Rajya Sabha on the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Bill, 2013 in his defence.

Former CM, through his counsel PK Sandhir, argued that the applicability of the PC (Amendment) Act, 2018, was pending before the Supreme Court. He further submitted that no savings clause was included in the amended Act, so pending litigation before the enactment of the new Act became redundant.

The PC Act was amended on July 26, 2018, and the chargesheet in the AJL case was filed on November 30, 2018. However, the CBI judge ruled, “…there is no impediment to frame the charge under Section 13 (1) (d) of the PC Act, 1988 since the offences in question alleged to have been committed prior to coming into force of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018.”

The court said that atthe stage of framing the charge, it “has to prima facie consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused”.

“The court is not required to appreciate evidence to conclude whether the materials produced are sufficient or not for convicting the accused… Whether or not those allegations are true, is a matter which cannot be determined at the stage of framing of charge,” the order said. It added that though evidence has to be proved at the stage of trial.