Tejaram v. State of Rajasthan

Summary

The appellant, a police constable, was charged under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on the allegation that he demanded Rs 1.5 lakh as illegal gratification on behalf of the Superintendent of Police. He challenged the order framing charge on the ground that no previous approval under Section 17A of the PC Act had been obtained before the enquiry and investigation. The Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Pali framed the charge and the High Court dismissed his revision.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court held that Section 17A is attracted only where the alleged offence is relatable to a recommendation made or a decision taken by the public servant in discharge of official functions or duties. A demand of illegal gratification is a pure criminal act unconnected with official functions, falls outside the protective umbrella of Section 17A, and the want of approval does not vitiate the proceedings. The Court declined to await the larger bench reference on the validity of Section 17A, since the provision was not attracted on facts, and treated the objection to the Section 19 sanction as, at best, an irregularity.

Facts

The appellant was a constable posted in the office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sirohi. He had earlier accused the complainant, also a constable, of taking money from accused persons during an investigation in Madurai. The appellant says the complaint against him was retaliation.

On 22 Apr 2021 the complainant e-mailed the Anti-Corruption Bureau alleging that the appellant had demanded Rs 1.5 lakh on behalf of the Superintendent of Police. FIR No. 174 of 2021 was registered on 4 Jun 2021 under Section 7A of the PC Act and Section 120B IPC. The appellant was arrested on 1 Sep 2021.

Sanction to prosecute under Section 19 was granted on 8 Dec 2023 and a chargesheet under Section 7 was filed on 19 Jan 2024. On 12 Sep 2024 the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Pali framed the charge in Sessions Case No. 2 of 2024.

The High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur dismissed the revision on 26 Mar 2025, and the appellant approached this Court by special leave.

Issues

1. Was prior approval under Section 17A of the PC Act needed before investigating a public servant accused of demanding a bribe?
2. Should the Court wait for the larger bench reference on the validity of Section 17A?
3. Did the timing of the sanction under Section 19 vitiate the proceedings?

Held

• Section 17A applies only when the alleged offence is relatable to a recommendation made or a decision taken by the public servant in the discharge of official functions or duties.
• Demanding illegal gratification is a pure criminal act, unconnected with official functions. It is not protected by Section 17A, and no prior approval was required.
• The pending reference on the validity of Section 17A has no bearing on a case where the section does not apply at all.
• The objection about the Section 19 sanction was treated as, at most, an irregularity. It does not vitiate the proceedings, and the parties can raise their contentions at trial.

Result: Appeal dismissed. The High Court's order stands, the charge under Section 7 of the PC Act remains, and the trial will go ahead.

Reasoning

• The Court read the text of Section 17A closely. The decisive words are 'in discharge of official functions or duties'. The protection is real, but it applies only when its conditions are met. It is not an omnibus shield.
• The first proviso to Section 17A says no approval is needed when a person is arrested on the spot for accepting a bribe. The Court read this with Santosh Karnani: requiring approval before investigating a bribe demand would defeat the purpose of the law.
• The Court found the judicial view consistent: Santosh Karnani, Surendra Dhariwal and Anil Daima in the Supreme Court, and two Kerala High Court decisions, all keep bribery outside Section 17A.

Points to note

• Ratio: Section 17A is not an omnibus protection. It applies only where (i) there is a recommendation made or decision taken by the public servant, (ii) in discharge of official functions or duties, and (iii) the alleged offence is relatable to it.
• Follows CBI v. Santosh Karnani, Surendra Dhariwal and Anil Daima, and approves the Kerala High Court's view in Shankara Bhat and M.R. Simon. Read with the first proviso to Section 17A (trap cases).
• Distinguish previous approval under Section 17A (before enquiry, inquiry or investigation) from sanction under Section 19 (before cognizance).
• Left open: whether Sections 17A and 19 are procedural or substantive (pending in B.S. Yeddyurappa v. A. Alam Pasha), and the validity of Section 17A (referred to a larger bench in CPIL v. Union of India, 13 Jan 2026).
• An objection to the timing of the Section 19 sanction raised at the stage of charge was treated as an irregularity and left to be agitated at trial.

Law applied

Statutes and provisions

• Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: Section 17A (prior approval before enquiry or investigation)
• Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: Sections 7 and 7A (demand of undue advantage)
• Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: Section 19 (sanction for prosecution)
• Indian Penal Code, 1860: Section 120B

Cases relied on or distinguished