The Supreme Court dismissed a criminal appeal challenging the framing of charges under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against a constable accused of demanding a bribe. The Court clarified that Section 17A of the Act, which requires prior sanction for investigation into offences relatable to a public servant’s official functions, has no application where the alleged offence is a pure criminal act unconnected to official duties.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Tejar, a constable posted at the office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sirohi, Rajasthan, was accused by fellow constable Devendra Kumar of demanding a bribe of Rs. 1.5 lakh to allow certain persons to escape prosecution. The complainant allegedly sent a false e-mail dated 22.04.2021 to the Anti-Corruption Bureau leveling this accusation.
Key Facts
- The appellant was a constable at the DSP office, Sirohi.
- The complainant, Devendra Kumar, was a constable at Police Station, Abu City, Sirohi.
- On 22.04.2021 the complainant sent a false e-mail to the Anti-Corruption Bureau alleging that the appellant had demanded a bribe of Rs. 1.5 lakh on behalf of the Superintendent of Police.
- FIR No. 174 of 2021 was registered on 04.06.2021 under Section 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
- The appellant was arrested on 01.09.2021.
- Sanction for prosecution under Section 19 of the PC Act was granted on 08.12.2023.
- A chargesheet bearing No. 06 of 2024 dated 19.01.2024 was filed under Section 7 of the PC Act.
- The case was committed to the Trial Court as Sessions Case No. 2 of 2024.
- By order dated 12.09.2024 the Trial Court framed a charge under Section 7 of the PC Act.
- The appellant filed a Criminal Revision Petition before the High Court of Rajasthan, Jodhpur, challenging the framing of charge.
- The High Court dismissed the revision petition by judgment and order dated 26.03.2025.
- The present special leave appeal was filed, leading to the Supreme Court’s judgment dated 16.10.2026.
Procedural History
- 04.06.2021: FIR No. 174/2021 registered.
- 01.09.2021: Appellant arrested.
- 08.12.2023: Sanction for prosecution under Section 19 PC Act granted.
- 19.01.2024: Chargesheet filed.
- 12.09.2024: Trial Court framed charge under Section 7 PC Act.
- 26.03.2025: High Court dismissed Criminal Revision Petition.
- 16.10.2026: Supreme Court delivered judgment.
The Parties' Positions
Appellant’s Contention: Prior approval under Section 17A of the PC Act was mandatory before any investigation could be initiated against a public servant; failure to obtain such sanction vitiated the proceedings; reliance placed on Nara Chandrababu Naidu v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Yashwant Sinha v. CBI.
Respondent’s Contention: Section 17A does not grant blanket immunity; the alleged act of demanding a bribe is not relatable to any recommendation or decision made in discharge of official functions; thus the provision is not attracted; reliance on Yashwant Sinha was misplaced; reference to CBI v. Santosh Karnani and Anil Daima v. State of Rajasthan to show that demand of bribe falls outside the scope of Section 17A.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 requires prior sanction for initiating an investigation into an allegation of demanding illegal gratification by a public servant, i.e., whether such an act is relatable to a recommendation or decision taken by the public servant in discharge of official functions.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the language of Section 17A, which applies only where the alleged offence is relatable to any recommendation or decision taken by a public servant in discharge of official functions or duties. It observed that the first proviso to Section 17A excludes cases involving arrest on the spot for accepting undue advantage, indicating the legislative intent to protect bona fide official actions, not pure criminal acts. The Court held:
"Section 17 -A by any stretch of imagination cannot be applied to cases of demand of illegal gratification."
This statement (Para 7) underscored that the allegation of demanding a bribe is a pure criminal act unconnected to the appellant’s official duties. The Court further relied on CBI v. Santosh Karnani and Anil Daima v. State of Rajasthan to reiterate that Section 17A has no application where the offence does not stem from a recommendation or decision in official capacity. Consequently, the want of prior sanction under Section 17A did not vitiate the proceedings, and the trial could proceed on its merits.
The Verdict
The appeal was dismissed; the High Court’s judgment and order dated 26.03.2025 were upheld; no monetary relief or costs were awarded.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Scope of Section 17A PC Act Limited to Official Functions
- Section 17A applies only when the alleged offence is relatable to a recommendation or decision made by a public servant in discharge of official functions.
- Allegations of demanding bribes, receiving illegal gratification, or similar pure criminal acts fall outside its ambit.
No Requirement for Prior Sanction in Bribery Cases
- Investigations into allegations of bribery against public servants do not require prior approval under Section 17A or Section 19 of the PC Act.
- Failure to obtain such sanction does not vitiate the proceedings; the trial proceeds on merit.
Reliance on Precedent Must Be Fact-Specific
- Judgments such as Yashwant Sinha v. CBI are applicable only where the alleged offence is connected to official functions.
- Practitioners must scrutinize the factual nexus before invoking Section 17A as a bar to investigation.
