ORDER :

1. These two petitions involve a common question whether protection under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') is available to the petitioners charged under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 1988 for possession of assets disproportionate to known source of income. Hence, they are disposed of by this common order.

2. Petitioners in both petitions have challenged orders passed by the learned Special Judge rejecting their respective interlocutory applications filed under Section 17A of the Act.

Brief facts in W.P. Nos. 14492-93/2019

3. Based on a source report dated 21st August 2013, Lokayuktha Police registered FIR No.13/2013 on 29th August 2013 alleging possession of assets disproportionate to petitioner's known source of income. After investigation, charge sheet has been filed alleging possession of disproportionate assets to the tune of 77.04% more than the legitimate income of the petitioner. He is facing trial in Special C.C. No.461/2016 for offences punishable under Section 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Act.

4. On 21st August 2018 an application was moved before the learned Special Judge under Section 17A of the Act to close the case for non compliance of the said provision. Learned Special Judge by order dated 7th September 2018 has dismissed the said application.

Brief facts in W.P. No.18046/2019

5. Based on a source report dated 21st January 2013 Lokayuktha Police registered FIR No. 14/2013 on 6th February 2013 alleging possession of assets disproportionate to petitioner's known source of income. After investigation, charge sheet has been filed alleging possession of disproportionate assets to the tune of 151.96% more than the legitimate income of the petitioner. He is facing trial in Special C.C. No.407/2016 for offences punishable under Section 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Act.

6. On 4th September 2018 an application was moved before the learned Special Judge under Section 17A of the Act to close the case for non compliance of the said provision. Learned Special Judge by order dated 11th February 2019 has dismissed the said application.

7. Shri C.V. Sudhindra, learned Advocate for the petitioners in both the cases urged following contentions:

That Section 17A has been inserted into the Act on 26th July 2018. That Section 17A must be construed as having retrospective effect because:

(a) it is a beneficial legislation in favour of accused and therefore, it should enure to the benefit of the public servant.

(b) in the 69th Report on Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Bill, 2013 the Parliamentary Standing Committee has opined that the Investigating Agencies have misused Section 13(1)(d)(iii) of the Act.

(c) that the Amendment has been brought to protect innocent and honest officials and law presumes that a public servant is innocent and honest unless proved contrary beyond reasonable doubt.

That the FIR registered is not in consonance with Section 154 Cr.P.C. inasmuch as the person who provides information is not shown as the complainant.

That the Source Report is collected by the Police Officers on deputation who takes instructions from the Lokayuktha.

If the benefit of Section 17A of the Act is not extended to the petitioners, it amounts to violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.

He placed reliance on the following authorities:

(i) T. Barai vs. Henry Ah Hoe and Another, (1983) 1 SCC 177 and contended that the Rule of beneficial construction should be applied to mitigate the rigour of law.

(ii) The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Ranka and Ranka, 2012 (284) ELT 185 (Kar) : Manu/KA/2649/2011.

(iii) All Manipur Pensioners Association vs. State of Manipur, Civil Appeal No. 10857/2016.

(iv) B.A. Srinivasan vs. Station House Officer and Another, Crl. R.P. No. 834/2015 dated 08.08.2018, High Court of Karnataka and contended that the amendment has been brought to the Act by substitution and not by insertion and therefore, protection under Section 17A must enure to petitio