The Supreme Court has held that Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which requires prior approval before investigating a public servant, does not apply to a case of demanding illegal gratification. A Bench of Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice N.V. Anjaria dismissed the appeal of a Rajasthan police constable who challenged the charge framed against him under Section 7 of the PC Act.
The appeal was filed against the Rajasthan High Court’s order dated 26.03.2025, which had dismissed the constable’s criminal revision petition and upheld the framing of charge by the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Pali.
Background
The appellant, Tejaram, was a constable posted at the office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sirohi. According to the appellant, he had alleged that the complainant, constable Devendra Kumar, took illegal gratification from accused persons during an investigation trip to Madurai to allow them to escape.
The appellant claimed that, in retaliation, the complainant sent an e-mail dated 22.04.2021 to the Anti-Corruption Bureau alleging that the appellant had demanded a bribe of ₹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 PC Act and Section 120B of the IPC. The appellant was arrested on 01.09.2021.
Sanction for prosecution under Section 19 of the PC Act was granted on 08.12.2023, and a chargesheet was filed on 19.01.2024. On 12.09.2024, the Trial Court framed a charge under Section 7 of the PC Act.
Arguments on Section 17A PC Act
Senior Counsel Abhimanyu Bhandari, appearing for the appellant, argued that since the appellant was a public servant, Section 17A was mandatory and barred any enquiry or investigation without prior approval of the competent authority. He submitted that this failure could not be cured later and that the High Court erred in relying on Nara Chandrababu Naidu vs. State of Andhra Pradesh while disregarding Yashwant Sinha vs. CBI. He also pointed out that the question whether Sections 17A and 19 are procedural or substantive is pending before the Supreme Court in B.S. Yeddiyurappa vs. A. Alam Pasha.
Additional Advocate General Sansriti Pathak, appearing for the State of Rajasthan, submitted that Section 17A does not provide blanket immunity and cannot protect criminal acts unrelated to official duties. She argued that a demand for illegal gratification was not part of the appellant’s official functions, nor relatable to any recommendation or decision. She also noted that the appellant never challenged the FIR.
Supreme Court’s Findings
Relying on CBI vs. Santosh Karnani, Surendra Dhariwal vs. State of Rajasthan and Anil Daima vs. State of Rajasthan, the Court said the judicial view on the issue is “consistent and categorical.”
The Court explained that Section 17A applies only where the alleged offence is relatable to a recommendation made or decision taken by the public servant in discharge of official functions. It observed, “The Section cannot be viewed to have an omnibus application.”
Applying this to the case, the Court held, “The act of demanding a bribe is a pure criminal act, not connected with official functions and not relatable to or having any linkage with recommendation or decision of the appellant in his capacity, as public servant.”
On the reference of Section 17A’s validity to a larger Bench in Centre for Public Interest Litigation vs. Union of India, the Court said it had no connection with the present case, since Section 17A did not apply at all.
On the claim of belated sanction under Section 19, the Court said it would amount to a mere irregularity and could not vitiate the proceedings. “The trial would be conducted on its merits, where the respective parties would raise their rival contentions.”
Outcome
Holding that the want of prior approval under Section 17A had “in no manner vitiated the initiation of criminal proceedings against the appellant”, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s judgment and dismissed the appeal.
Case Title: Tejaram vs. State of Rajasthan
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. ___ of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 11709 of 2025)
Bench: Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice N.V. Anjaria
Date: October 16, 2026
