The entire submission of the learned counsel is thoroughly
misconceived. Section 17-A came to be enacted with a particular
object. Section 17-A talks about enquiry or inquiry or
investigation of offences relatable to recommendations made or
decision taken by public servant in discharge of official functions
or duties. Section 17-A by any stretch of imagination cannot be
applied to cases of demand of illegal gratification. {Para 7}
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
EXTRAORDINARY CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NOS.1010-1011 OF 2026
ANIL DAIMA ETC. Vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.
Citation: 2026 INSC 72
1. These petitions arise from a common judgment and order passed
by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur
dated 3.10.2025 by which the two Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions
i.e. Criminal Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 450 and 451 of 2025,
respectively, filed by the petitioners before us came to be
disposed of.
2. The High Court addressed itself on two neat questions of law.
The two questions of law are as under:-
“(I) If any offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act
is committed by a person, serving under the Central
Government, or an employee of the Central Government,
within the territorial jurisdiction of the State of
Rajasthan, whether the State agency of Anti-Corruption
Bureau (ACB) is authorized and has jurisdiction to
register a criminal case against such person and to
proceed for investigation and filing of charge-sheet. Or
whether the jurisdiction lies exclusively with the Central
Bureau of Investigation (CBI), and without prior approval/
consent of the CBI, the ACB cannot proceed in the matter?
(II) If a charge-sheet of an offence under the Prevention
of Corruption Act, is filed by the Anti-Corruption Bureau
against a person, serving under the Central Government or
an employee of the Central Government before the Court of
competent jurisdiction, but without obtaining the
approval/ consent of the CBI, whether such charge-sheet
can be considered valid in law and within jurisdiction to
commence and culminate the criminal trial of such offence
in accordance with law?”
3. Both the questions, referred to above, have been answered by the
High Court against the petitioners. The High Court after due
consideration of the position of law and a review of various
decisions of this Court and the provisions of law, has recorded a
categorical finding that the ACB of the State of Rajasthan has
jurisdiction to register the criminal case under the provisions of
the Prevention of Corruption Act despite the fact that the accused
is an employee of the Central Government. The High Court has taken
the correct view while saying that it is incorrect to say that it
is only the CBI who could have instituted the prosecution.
4. At this stage, the learned counsel made an endeavour to
persuade us to give benefit of Section 17-A of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 (for short “the Act, 1988”) to his clients
under the provision of Section 17-A.
5. At the outset, we must clarify that the petitioners before us
are sought to be prosecuted for the offence punishable under
Sections 7 and 7A respectively, of the Act, 1988.
6. This is a case of demand of illegal gratification. Section
17-A reads thus:-
“17-A. Enquiry or Inquiry or investigation of offences
relatable to recommendations made or decision taken by
public servant in discharge of official functions or
duties.—(1) No police officer shall conduct any enquiry or
inquiry or investigation into any offence alleged to have
been committed by a public servant under this Act, where
the alleged offence is relatable to any recommendation
made or decision taken by such public servant in discharge
of his official functions or duties, without the previous
approval—
(a) in the case of a person who is or was employed, at
the time when the offence was alleged to have been
committed, in connection with the affairs of the Union, of
that Government;
(b) in the case of a person who is or was employed, at
the time when the offence was alleged to have been
committed, in connection with the affairs of a State, of
that Government;
(c) in the case of any other person, of the authority
competent to remove him from his office, at the time when
the offence was alleged to have been committed:
Provided that no such approval shall be necessary for
cases involving arrest of a person on the spot on the
charge of accepting or attempting to accept any undue
advantage for himself or for any other person:
Provided further that the concerned authority shall convey
its decision under this section within a period of three
months, which may, for reasons to be recorded in writing
by such authority, be extended by a further period of one
month.”
7. The entire submission of the learned counsel is thoroughly
misconceived. Section 17-A came to be enacted with a particular
object. Section 17-A talks about enquiry or inquiry or
investigation of offences relatable to recommendations made or
decision taken by public servant in discharge of official functions
or duties. Section 17-A by any stretch of imagination cannot be
applied to cases of demand of illegal gratification.
8. We have no hesitation in rejecting such submission at the
threshold.
9. With the aforesaid, the Special Leave Petitions stand
dismissed.
10. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
………………………………………………………………J.
(J.B. PARDIWALA)
………………………………………………………………J.
(SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA)
NEW DELHI;
19TH JANUARY, 2026
No comments:
Post a Comment