While dismissing the special leave petitions of the accused persons booked under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the Supreme Court has held that Section 17-A cannot be applied to cases of demand of illegal gratification. 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

The Apex Court was considering a petition filed by the petitioners who were sought to be prosecuted for the offence punishable under Sections 7 and 7A the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioners sought the benefit of Section 17-A.

The Division Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma held, “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.”

Senior Advocate Ashok Gaur represented the Petitioner while Additional Advocate General Shivmangal Sharma represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

This was a case of demand for illegal gratification. The Petition was filed against the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court whereby it was held that the ACB of the State of Rajasthan has jurisdiction to register the criminal case under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act despite the fact that the accused is an employee of the Central Government.

Reasoning

The Bench, at the outset, held, “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.”

Section 17- A prohibits a police officer from conducting any enquiry or investigation into any offence alleged to have been committed by a public servant where the alleged offence is relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken by such public servant in discharge of his official functions or duties, without the previous approval. Finding the submission of the petitioners to be misconceived, the Bench explained that Section 17-A cannot be applied to cases of demand for illegal gratification.

Thus, the Bench dismissed the Special Leave Petitions.

Cause Title: Anil Daima v. State of Rajasthan (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 72)

Appearance

Petitioner: Senior Advocate Ashok Gaur, AOR Megha Karnwal, Advocates Sakshi Singh, Tarun Jaiman

Respondent: Additional Advocate General Shivmangal Sharma, Advocate Puneet Parihar

Click here to read/download Order




Justice J.B. PardiwalaJustice Satish Chandra Sharma

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.