Case of State against Nara Chandrababu Naidu is, Naidu was a mastermind. Learned Senior Advocate, Mr. Mukul Rohtagi argued, since, at time of commission of offence, protective shield of Section 17A of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was not in force, Naidu could not claim benefits thereof. I do not accept. It has been already observed by me, point of time Section 17A would become applicable is starting point of ‘enquiry’, ‘inquiry’, or ‘investigation’ and not time of commission of alleged offence. Liberty is preserved for State to apply for such ‘approval’ as contained in Section 17A. 

– Hon’ble Justice Aniruddha Bose, Nara Chandrababu Naidu v. State of Andhra Pradesh, [Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.12289 of 2023]. 

Even otherwise, absence of an approval as contemplated in Section 17A of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for conducting ‘enquiry’, ‘inquiry’ or ‘investigation’ of offences alleged to have been committed by a public servant in purported exercise of his official functions or duties, would neither vitiate proceedings nor would be a ground to quash proceedings or a FIR registered against such public servant. 

– Hon’ble Justice Bela M. Trivedi, Nara Chandrababu Naidu v. State of Andhra Pradesh, [Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.12289 of 2023].