[Prevention Of Corruption Act] No Prior Approval U/s. 17A Is Necessary For On-Spot Arrest Of Public Servant Caught Accepting Bribe: H.P HC

While dismissing the petition seeking quashing of FIR, the Himachal Pradesh High Court held that as per Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for making an arrest at the spot when the public servant is accepting or attempting to accept a bribe through another person, it is not necessary that the arresting authority takes prior approval for conducting investigation or inquiry against him.

Noting that though prior approval to conduct inquiry under Section 17A of the 1988 Act is necessary as its purpose is to protect public servants against malicious complaints when they are taking honest decisions, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua observed that, “the section also comes with a rider that no such approval shall be necessary for 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. Section 17A of the Act has to be interpreted in a meaningful manner that bolsters the fight against corruption and at the same time protects honest officials.”

Senior Advocate B.C. Negi appeared for the Petitioner, whereas Additional Advocate General Y.P.S. Dhaulta appeared for the Respondent.

The facts which led to such observation was that the Petitioner, a Motor Vehicle Inspector (MVI) in the office of Regional Transport Authority of Bilaspur District, was made a co-accused in an FIR registered against him by the State Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau under Section 7 and Section 7A of the 1988 Act. He therefore prayed that FIR was registered against him while he was conducting his lawful duties and the pre-requisite of taking prior approval by competent authority as mentioned under Section 17A was not followed. The basis of the FIR was an allegation that the Petitioner while carrying out duties of an MVI of another district, was taking bribe during the process either by himself or through his conduits.

Upon perusal of the facts and examination of evidence, the Bench found that the Respondent had conducted an investigation based on complaints/allegations made by some other person and was not related to the recommendation or decision made by the Petitioner.

While dismissing the contention of illegality raised by the Petitioner that proper procedure was not followed as required by Section 17A of the 1988 Act, the Bench relied on the decision of Subramanian Swamy Vs. Dr. Manmohan Singh and another [(2012) 3 SCC 64] wherein it was held that the procedural provisions relating to sanction must be construed in such a manner as to advance the causes of corruption, honesty, justice, and good governance as opposed to escalation of corruption.

Therefore, referring to a decision of the Kerala High Court in Shankara Bhat Vs. State of Kerala (CRL.MC No. 7542 of 2018) wherein it was held that “legislative intent can only be to protect a public servant in the bona fide discharge of official functions or duties. However, when the act of a public servant is ex-facie criminal or constitutes an offence, prior approval of the Government would not be necessary”, the Bench dismissed the petition while holding that prior approval under Section 17A was not required.

Cause Title: Abhishek Sharma v. State of H.P.

Click here to read/download the Order