INDIA Law and Practice Contributed by: Priyank Ladoia, Asif Ahmed, Pranav Tomar and Puneet Dhanoa, AZB & Partners
for an MLA. The Supreme Court overruled its earlier verdict delivered in the case of PV Nar - simha Rao v State (1998) 4 SCC 626, which had previously ruled that a Member of Parliament enjoyed immunity from prosecution on charges of bribery. Nara Chandrababu Naidu v The State of Andhra Pradesh (2024) SCC OnLine SC 47 The principal issue raised in this matter was in respect of retroactive application of Section 17A of the PCA, which stipulates that sanctioning for prosecution must be obtained prior to investi - gating public officials for actions undertaken in the course of their official duties. A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court thor - oughly examined the retroactive application of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, despite the alleged offences having occurred between 2015 and 2019, prior to the introduc - tion of Section 17A in 2018. A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court came to a split decision with respect to retrospective application of Sec - tion 17A, and the matter has been referred to a larger bench to resolve issues of retrospective application of Section 17A. PI Babu v CBI, Criminal Appeal No 1864 of 2013 In this judgment, the Supreme Court held that a court refusing to take cognisance of an offence under Section 19 of the PCA on the grounds that no valid sanction is obtained must still record its findings on the merits of the case. In so rul - ing, the Supreme Court remanded the matter to the Special Court with a direction to decide the case afresh and record its findings on each of the issues involved on merits. In this case, the Court held that, since the Special Court had failed to record any specific findings on merits and acquitted the appellant only on the grounds
that the sanction obtained by the prosecution was not valid, the Special Court had committed an error. 7.6 Level of Sanctions Imposed As stated in 5.2 Guidelines Applicable to the Assessment of Penalties , there is no formal sentencing policy in India. Consequently, courts have wide discretion in matters concerning sen - tencing of accused. A number of broad guide - lines have been outlined by the Supreme Court with respect to the awarding of sentences to accused persons. As per these, when awarding sentences, courts must consider the principles of proportionality and deterrence. Broadly, cer - tain mitigating circumstances that courts con - sider when sentencing an accused upon com - pletion of trial include: • past antecedents of the accused; • their mental and physical health at the time of the offence; • the role played in the commission of the offence; and • their socio-economic background. The PCA as originally enacted did not expressly provide for any duties to prevent corruption. However, parliament amended the PCA in 2018 such that its application has been extended to include commercial organisations. Section 9 has therefore been amended to criminalise the act of bribing as well as an attempt to bribe a public official by a commercial organisation. However, the amendment also states that if a commercial organisation has implemented adequate procedures to ensure compliance of 8. Compliance Expectations 8.1 Compliance Obligations
230 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook