The Supreme Court has held that Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which requires the government’s previous approval before investigating a public servant, does not apply to a police constable accused of demanding a bribe, because demanding a bribe is a pure criminal act and not part of an official decision or recommendation.
Tejaram, a constable posted at the Sirohi DSP’s office in Rajasthan, said that he had alleged corruption against a fellow constable, Devendra Kumar, who then retaliated by sending a false email in April 2021 to the Anti-Corruption Bureau, saying that Tejaram had demanded Rs 1.5 lakh on behalf of the Superintendent of Police. An FIR was registered in June 2021 under Section 7A of the PC Act and Section 120B IPC. He was arrested in September 2021, sanction for prosecution under Section 19 was given in December 2023, a charge-sheet was filed in January 2024, and the Special Judge, ACB, Pali framed a charge under Section 7 in September 2024. The Rajasthan High Court dismissed his revision, and he argued before the Supreme Court that prior approval under Section 17A was mandatory and that its absence could not be cured later. Justices S.V.N. Bhatti and N.V. Anjaria dismissed the appeal. They held that Section 17A applies only where the alleged offence is “relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken” by the public servant in discharging official functions or duties. Demand of illegal gratification is not connected with discharge of official duty, so none of the section’s ingredients was satisfied. They relied on their earlier rulings in Santosh Karnani, Surendra Dhariwal and Anil Daima, and noted that the section does not have an omnibus application. The court also said that the pending reference to a larger bench on the validity of Section 17A in Centre for Public Interest Litigation did not stop it, since Section 17A had no application at all. On the objection to sanction under Section 19, it said the sanction was taken before cognizance, so any delay was only an irregularity, and the trial would proceed on its merits.
Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act requires prior approval for an inquiry or investigation only where the alleged offence is relatable to a recommendation made or a decision taken by the public servant in discharge of his official functions or duties. It does not cover a bare demand or acceptance of a bribe, which is a criminal act unconnected to official functions, so the lack of prior approval does not invalidate the investigation. A sanction under Section 19 obtained before cognizance is taken, even if delayed, is a mere irregularity and does not vitiate the proceedings.
Tejaram v. State of Rajasthan, Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 11709 of 2025, Supreme Court (Justices S.V.N. Bhatti and N.V. Anjaria), decided on 16.10.2026 | Citation: 2026 INSC 1147
Leave a Reply