New Delhi Jan 16 (Reporter) The Supreme Court on Tuesday referred the plea of former Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister and Telugu Desam Party (TDP) National President N Chandrababu Naidu for quashing a First information report (FIR) against him in the skill development scam case to a larger bench as both the judges of the bench were having dissenting views. A bench of Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Bela M Trivedi, who heard Naidu's special leave petition on the issue that the police could not have made him (Naidu) an accused in the case without obtaining the sanction under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, delivered two separate judgments which could not lead to any conclusion so the matter will now be referred to a larger bench. Justice Bose said that given the split in the bench's interpretation of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the matter will now be referred to a larger bench. "As we have taken different opinions on the interpretation of this section, we refer the matter to the Chief Justice of India for appropriate directions," Justice Bose added. The TDP Chief filed an SLP in the Apex Court challenging the September 22 order passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court declining to quash a first information report (FIR) arraigning the ex-Chief Minister as one of the accused in the scam even as no prior sanction was obtained under the Section 17 A of prevention of corruption Act 1988, as according to him it is a mandatory provision before filing a case against a Public Servant. The top court reserved its judgment on October 17 last year. Naidu's lawyers, senior advocates Harish Salve and Siddharth Luthra, argued that the police could not have made Naidu an accused in the case without obtaining the sanction under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The State, represented by Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, countered this argument saying that since the offence occurred before the insertion of Section 17A in the PC Act through the 2018 amendment, the mandate of prior sanction was not applicable in the case. The judges delivered two separate judgments. Justice Bose held that previous sanctions within the meaning of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 will have to be obtained after becoming operational, failing which, an inquiry shall be illegal. Accordingly, he held that Naidu could not have been proceeded against for offenses under Section 13(1) (c), 13(1) (d), and 13(2) of the 1988 PC Act on grounds of non-procurement of prior approval from the concerned authority. However, the State could now apply and obtain the approval order, he clarified. He also ruled that the trial court had jurisdiction to pass the remand order and refused to quash it. "A lack of approval would not make the entire remand order non-est," Justice Bose said. Justice Trivedi disagreed with her colleague on the interpretation of Section 17A. She held that this provision could not be made applicable retrospectively and her conclusion that Section 17A, being substantive, would only apply to new offences under the PC Act, which underwent significant amendment in 2018. The prior sanction requirement under Section 17A would apply only to the new offenses and not to the offenses existing before the 2018 amendment. She also pointed to the legislative intent behind the provision and said, the cardinal principle of construction is that any statute would have prospective operation unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to "It cannot be the objective of Section 17A to give any benefit to dishonest public servants. If it is applied retrospectively, it will frustrate many pending inquiries and investigations." Naidu was arrested in connection with this case on September 9 by the State Crime Investigation Department (CID). He was in judicial custody till he was granted interim medical bail by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in October last year. Later, he was granted bail by the single-judge bench. Chandrababu Naidu, erstwhile Andhra Pradesh chief minister, has been arrested in connection with a skill development scam in the state, with the state crime investigation department claiming to have prime facie evidence of the TDP National President 's key role in the alleged embezzlement of around Rs 371 crore from the Andhra Pradesh Skill Development Corporation through fictitious companies during the TDP's rule between 2014 and 2019. He is the 37th accused in a 2021 FIR related to the multi-crore scam involving the state skill development corporation. Subsequently, a Vijayawada court remanded Naidu to police custody for two days on September 23 and 24. In his petition, he argued that the trial court's order remanding him to custody did not consider that the CID had failed to obtain prior approval from the governor, as required by Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act. However, a bench of Justice K Sreenivas Reddy of the HC ruled that prior sanction from the competent authority was not necessary for the investigation since the use of public funds, allegedly for personal gain, did not constitute an act in the discharge of official duties. Challenging The High Court ruling, the TDP leader had approached the Supreme Court in a special leave petition...////...