Questions and answers on law (Part 86)

Q :-  Whether Sanction for all offences  under corruption  act is required , for which offences  sanction is not required? How sanction for prosecution in proved in cases under prevention of corruption act

Ans:- 1) Is sanction required for all PC Act offences?

No. Sanction under Section 19 PC Act is required only when the accused is a “public servant” and the court is taking cognizance of specified PC Act offences (bribery/criminal misconduct etc.) and the person is still covered as a public servant at the relevant time.

2) For which situations/offences sanction is not required?

Print Page

Questions and answers on law (Part 94)

Q :- explain me procedure  of raid under  prevention of corruption  Act? 

Ans:-  A “raid” under the Prevention of Corruption Act is usually a trap/raid for bribe (Sections 7/8/12 PC Act) conducted by ACB/CBI, and the procedure is essentially the standard trap protocol plus statutory requirements on investigation and sanction.

Trap/Raid procedure (stepwise)

1. Complaint & verification

Print Page

“Shielding the Dishonest?” – Supreme Court Split Verdict on Section 17A PC Act in Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India

 

• Case title: Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India​

• Case No.: W.P. (Civil) No. 1373 of 2018 

• Dated: JANUARY 13, 2026​

• Court: Supreme Court of India​

• Bench: Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice K.V. Viswanathan​

• Provision under challenge: Section 17A, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018)[​

• Result: Split verdict – Justice Nagarathna held Section 17A unconstitutional; Justice Viswanathan upheld it with a reinterpretation.​

Background: What Section 17A Requires

Print Page

Supreme Court: S.17A Prevention Of Corruption Act Won't Apply To Cases Of Demand Of Illegal Gratification

 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

Date: 19TH JANUARY, 2026

Print Page

Delhi HC: Sanction under S 17A of The Prevention of Corruption Act is not required in Trap cases

 In this regard, it is apposite to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in CBI v. Santosh Karnani, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 427. In this case respondent no. 1 therein, an IRS officer, was involved in case of illegal gratification, the Apex Court dealt with Section 17A of the PC Act and held as under:—

33. The contention that prior approval of investigation, as mandated under Section 17A of Prevention of Corruption Act, has not been obtained and thus, the proceedings initiated against Respondent No. 1 stand vitiated, has no legal or factual basis. Section 17A merely contemplates that police officers shall not conduct any enquiry, inquiry or investigation into any offence alleged to have been committed by a public servant where the alleged offence is relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken in discharge of official functions or duties, without the previous approval of the competent authority. The first proviso to the section states that such approval is not necessary in cases involving arrest of the person on the spot on the charges of accepting undue advantage.

34. As may be seen, the first proviso to Section 17A refers to cases wherein a public servant is charged with acceptance of an undue advantage or attempt thereof. A prior approval or sanction to investigate such an officer in a trap case is likely to defeat the very purpose of trap and the investigation, which is not the underlying intention of the legislature. The investigation against Respondent No. 1, being an accused of demanding a bribe, did not require any previous approval of the Central Government. That apart, the accusation against Respondent No. 1 does not revolve around any recommendations made or decisions taken by him in his quasi-judicial or administrative capacity.{Para 39}

 In the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

(Before Shalinder Kaur, J.)

Arun Kumar Jindal Vs Central Bereau of Investigation 

Bail Appln. 1705/2025 and CRL.M.A. 13567/2025

Decided on May 9, 2025

Citation: 2025 SCC OnLine Del 3026.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Section 17A of Prevention of Corruption Act Not Retrospective; Not Applicable To FIRs Before 2018 Amendment

 It is a cardinal principle of construction that every statute

is prospective, unless it is expressly or by necessary implication

made to have retrospective operation. There is a presumption

against retrospectivity. An express provision should ordinarily be

made to make a statute retrospective. The presumption against

retrospectivity may also be rebutted by necessary implication as

held by this Court in Akram Ansari vs. Chief Election Officer

reported in (2008) 2 SCC 95, which has been referred to and relied

upon by the Kerala High Court in its judgment in K.R. Ramesh vs.

Central Bureau of Investigation and Another reported in 2020 SCC

Online Kerala 2529. The device of a legal fiction can also be used

to introduce retrospective operation. Generally, it is considered

that every statute dealing with substantive rights is prima facie

prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made

retrospective. {Para 7}

8. In T.N. Bettaswamaiah vs. State of Karnataka being W.P.

No.29176/2019 (GM-RES), decided on 20.12.2019, which is reported reported in MANU/KA/9503/2019, the Karnataka High Court referred to the judgment of this Court in Hitendra Vishnu Thakur vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. reported in (1994) 4 SCC 602, and rightly held :

“21. … But in Hitendra Vishnu Thakur & Ors.

vs. State of Maharashtra and Others (1994) 4

SCC 602 it is held that a statute which not

only changes the procedure but also creates

new rights and liabilities shall be

construed to be prospective in operation

unless otherwise provided either expressly

or by necessary implication. A careful

reading of both Section 17A as also Section

19 do not contain any express provision to

show that they are retrospective in nature

nor it is so discernable by implication.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1647 OF 2021

STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs TEJMAL CHOUDHARY 

Author: INDIRA BANERJEE, J.

Dated: December 16, 2021.

Print Page

Whether Prior Approval For Investigation U/S 17A of Prevention of Corruption Act is Necessary if Act Of Public Servant Is Ex-Facie Criminal?

The reasonable conclusion that can be arrived at regarding the scope

of section 17A is that prior approval under section 17A for conducting any

enquiry, inquiry or investigation is required only when the offence alleged is

relatable to a decision taken or recommendation made by the public authority

and it involves a debatable or suspicious or doubtful recommendation made

or decision taken by the authority. Acts, which are ex facie criminal or

constitute an offence do not require approval under section 17A of

P.C.Act.This legal proposition, seems to be clear from the statute and is in

consonance with the spirit of the Prevention of Corruption Act and also in

consonance with the legal principles laid down in relation to section 197

Cr.P.C.

26. Applying the above legal principles, I am of the firm opinion that in the

cases at hand, which involve allegation of falsification of accounts, breach of

trust and misappropriation of funds or acts which are exfacie criminal, no

prior approval under section 17A of Prevention of Corruption Act is required.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.M.C Nos.7542/2018 & others 9

SHANKARA BHAT, Vs STATE OF KERALA

PRESENT

 MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

 27TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 

Print Page