Demanding Bribe Is Pure Criminal Act; No Protective Umbrella U/S.17A PC Act As It Is Not Connected With Official Functions Of Public Servant: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court was considering an appeal by special leave filed by the appellant, who was booked under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Justice S.V.N. Bhatti, Justice N.V. Anjaria, Supreme Court
While upholding an order framing charge under the Prevention Of Corruption Act, the Supreme Court has held that the act of demanding a bribe is purely a criminal act, not connected with official functions, and such an act does not fall within the protective umbrella of Section 17A.
The Apex Court was considering an appeal by special leave filed by the appellant, who was booked under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, challenging the judgment passed by the Rajasthan High Court dismissing a Criminal Revision.
The Division Bench of Justice S.V.N Bhatti and Justice N.V. Anjaria held, “In the aforesaid view, Section 17A of the PC Act is not applicable in the case of appellant herein. None of the ingredients provided for in the Section is satisfied to attract its operation. 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. In the facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, the act of the appellant does not fall within the protective umbrella of Section 17A of the Act. It could not be said that the proceedings were vitiated for want of sanction.
Advocate Kartika Sharma represented the Petitioner while Additional Advocate General Sansriti Pathak represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The appellant was posted as a constable at the office of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sirohi, Rajasthan, and he levelled an allegation of graft against the complainant named Devendra Kumar, who was also a constable posted at Police Station, Abu City, Sirohi, Rajasthan. The complainant was asked to visit Madurai along with another constable for official work relating to an investigation. The appellant alleged that the complainant had taken illegal gratification from the accused persons to allow them to escape.
It was the case of the appellant that, in retaliation, the complainant sent a false e-mail to the Anti-Corruption Bureau and alleged that the appellant had demanded a bribe of Rs 1.5 lakh on behalf of the Superintendent of Police. An FIR came to be registered against the appellant under Section 7A and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Trial Court directed framing of charge against the appellant. The appellant’s appeal before the High Court came to be dismissed, leading to filing of the appeal before the Apex Court.
Reasoning
The Bench referred to Section17A of the PC Act, which provides that no police officer shall conduct an enquiry or investigation into any offence which is alleged to have been committed by a public servant under the PC Act, where the alleged offence is relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken by such public servant, and further that the same has to be in discharge of official functions or official duties of such public servant, against whom enquiry or investigation is to be initiated.
The Bench further explained that the First Proviso of the section says that no such approval should be necessary in respect of the cases involving arrest of a person on the spot on the charge of accepting or attempting to accept any undue advantage for himself or for any other person. As per the Second Proviso, the authority concerned has to convey its decision under this provision within the stipulated time, which is extendable by recording reasons for such extension.
“The decisive phrase in the section is “discharge his official functions or duties”. Though the legislature has intended to protect the public servant from being prosecuted by engrafting Section 17A in the statute book, the protection envisaged could be extended only if the conditions contemplated in the Section are satisfied. The Section cannot be viewed to have an omnibus application”, it stated.
The Bench took note of the fact that the allegation against the appellant was that of a criminal act of demanding illegal gratification of Rs 1.5 lakh. “In other words, the alleged offence against the public servant must be relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken by such public servant in discharge of his official duties. These primary and essential aspects are absent in the present case to attract Section 17A of the PC Act. The allegation is of demanding illegal gratification by the appellant, which is a pure criminal act unconnected to discharge of the official functions or duties”, it stated.
Decision
Thus, holding that Section 17A was not applicable in the case of the appellant and want of prior sanction thereunder by the competent authority had not vitiated the initiation of criminal proceedings against him, the Bench dismissed the appeal.
Cause Title: Tejaram v. State of Rajasthan (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1147)
Appearance
Petitioner: Advocates Kartika Sharma, Adwaita Sharma, AOR Udian Sharma, Advocates Sahil Saraswat, Harsha Sadhwani, Manav Mitra, Subhika Joshi, Prabal Pratap Singh
Respondent: Additional Advocate General Sansriti Pathak, AOR Nidhi Jaswal, Advocates Shagufa Khan, Apurva Sachdeva