The Supreme Court has ruled that the protection under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act), which mandates prior approval for conducting an enquiry or investigation against a public servant, is not available in cases involving a demand for illegal gratification.
The Division Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma further affirmed that the State Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) has the jurisdiction to register and investigate cases against Central Government employees within the state, rejecting the contention that such jurisdiction lies exclusively with the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
Background of the Case
The matter reached the Supreme Court through Special Leave Petitions (Criminal) challenging the judgment and order dated October 3, 2025, passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur. The High Court had disposed of two Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions (Nos. 450 and 451 of 2025) filed by the petitioners, Anil Daima and others.
The High Court had adjudicated on two specific questions of law:
- Whether the State agency, the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), is authorized to register a criminal case and proceed with investigation and filing of a charge-sheet against a person serving under the Central Government within the territorial jurisdiction of Rajasthan, or if such jurisdiction lies exclusively with the CBI.
- Whether a charge-sheet filed by the ACB against a Central Government employee without the prior approval or consent of the CBI is valid in law.
The High Court had answered both questions against the petitioners, holding that the ACB of the State of Rajasthan has the jurisdiction to register criminal cases under the PC Act even if the accused is a Central Government employee.
Arguments of the Parties
Before the Supreme Court, the learned counsel for the petitioners attempted to persuade the Bench to grant the benefit of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, to the petitioners.
The counsel argued for the applicability of the provision which mandates prior approval from the competent authority before any police officer can conduct an enquiry, inquiry, or investigation into an offence alleged to have been committed by a public servant.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
1. On the Jurisdiction of State ACB over Central Government Employees
The Supreme Court upheld the findings of the Rajasthan High Court regarding the jurisdiction of the State ACB. The Bench observed that the High Court, after a due consideration of the legal position and a review of various decisions, had recorded a “categorical finding” that the ACB of Rajasthan is authorized to act.
The Supreme Court noted:
“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.”
2. On the Applicability of Section 17A of the PC Act
The Court addressed the petitioner’s specific plea regarding Section 17A. The Bench clarified that the petitioners were sought to be prosecuted for offences punishable under Sections 7 and 7A of the Act, 1988, noting that this was a case of “demand of illegal gratification.”
The Court analyzed the text of Section 17A, emphasizing that the provision applies to offences “relatable to recommendations made or decision taken by public servant in discharge of official functions or duties.”
Rejecting the petitioner’s submission “at the threshold,” the Court observed:
“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.”
Decision
Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petitions, affirming the decision of the Rajasthan High Court and clearing the path for the prosecution of the accused.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Anil Daima Etc. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
- Case No.: S.L.P. (Crl.) Nos. 1010-1011/2026
- Coram: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
- Counsel for Petitioners: Mr. Ashok Gaur, Sr. Adv., Ms. Megha Karnwal, AOR, Ms. Sakshi Singh, Adv., Mr. Tarun Jaiman, Adv.
- Counsel for Respondents: Mr. Shivmangal Sharma, AAG, Mr. Puneet Parihar, Adv.
