This content is restricted to site members. If you are an existing user, please log in. New users may register below.

Existing Users Log In
   

By sclaw

You missed

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Sections 2(s) and 2(o) — Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014 — Sections 2(f), 100, 101, 102 — Quashing of FIRs — Jurisdiction of Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) Police Station post-bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh — High Court quashed Anti-Corruption Bureau FIRs on hyper-technical ground of lack of specific notification under Section 2(s) CrPC for the relocated ACB office (Vijayawada) after the State Reorganisation — Held: The High Court’s approach leads to a travesty of justice by nipping investigations in the bud on hyper-technical grounds — Pre-bifurcation Government Order (G.O.Ms. No. 268 dated 12.09.2003) declaring ACB offices as Police Stations, coupled with the express provisions of the 2014 Act (Sections 100 and 102), ensures continuity of “law” (which includes notifications/orders) in the successor State of Andhra Pradesh without requiring fresh adoption or notification — Section 102 of the 2014 Act facilitates courts/authorities to construe the existing law to apply to the new State, even absent specific adoption — Subsequent clarificatory G.O.Ms. No. 137 (14.09.2022) merely restates the position and its non-retroactive application reasoning by High Court is untenable — Hyper-technical reasoning, ignoring the spirit of the law and the continuity mandated by the Reorganisation Act, cannot be sustained. (Paras 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 16, 17, 21, 22, 24)