2026 INSC 1147

Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 11709 of 2025 Page 1 of 17

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2026

(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 11709 of 2025)

TEJARAM …APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF RAJASTHAN …RESPONDENT

J U D G M E N T

N.V. ANJARIA, J.

Leave granted.

2. By preferring this appeal by special leave, the

appellant seeks to call in question judgment and order dated

26.03.2025 passed by the High Court of Rajasthan at

Jodhpur

1, whereby the High Court dismissed Criminal

Revision Petition No. 1608 of 2024 of the appellant herein,

challenging the order dated 12.09.2024 of learned Special

1

Hereinafter “High Court”

Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 11709 of 2025 Page 2 of 17

Judge, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Pali

2 in Sessions Case No.2

of 2024 framing a charge against the appellant for the

offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,

1988

3, which order of Trial Court came to be upheld.

3. Sifted from unnecessary details, the pertinent facts

are that the appellant was a constable posted at the office of

Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sirohi, Rajasthan. It

appears that the appellant levelled an allegation of graft on

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.

3.1 It is the case of the appellant that, in retaliation the

complainant sent a false e-mail dated 22.04.2021 to the

Anti-Corruption Bureau and alleged that the appellant had

demanded bribe of Rs.1 .5 lakh on behalf of the

2

Hereinafter “Trial Court”

3

Hereinafter “PC Act”

Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 11709 of 2025 Page 3 of 17

Superintendent of Police. First Information Report

4 No. 174

of 2021 dated 04.06.2021 came to be registered against the

appellant under Section 7A of the PC Act and under Section

120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

5.

3.2 Thereafter, the chargesheet came to be filed against

the appellant under Section 7 of the PC Act. The case came

to be committed to the Trial Court to be registered as

Sessions Case No. 2 of 2024. By order dated 12.09.2024, the

charge against the appellant was directed to be framed for

the offence punishable under Section 7 of the PC Act as

amended in 2018.

3.3 The aggrieved appellant challenged order dated

12.09.2024 passed by the Trial Court framing the charge as

above, by filing Criminal Revision Petition before the High

Court. The High Court dismissed the same leading the

appellant to approach this Court.

4. The principal contention raised by learned Senior

Counsel Mr. Abhimanyu Bhandari for the appellant to assail

4

Hereinafter “FIR”

5

Hereinafter “IPC”

Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 11709 of 2025 Page 4 of 17

the impugned judgment and order of the High Court as well

as against framing the charge by the Trial Court was that

since the appellant was a public servant, the provision

under Section 17A of the PC Act ought to have been

complied with before initiating investigation. It was

submitted that Section 17A of the PC Act was mandatory

and created a bar against initiation of any enquiry or

investigation against a public servant for the acts done in

discharge of official functions without prior approval of the

competent authority.

4.1 Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submitted

that the High Court erred in dismissing the Revision Petition

by relying on the judgment in Nara Chandrababu Naidu vs.

State of Andhra Pradesh

6

, while disregarding the position

of law laid down in Yashwant Sinha and Others vs. Central

Bureau of Investigation

7

. It was further submitted that

prior approval under Section 17A of the PC Act was a

mandatory and that the failure to obtain such approval

cannot be cured at a subsequent stage. Learned Senior

6

(2020) 2 SCC 338

7

(2020) 2 SCC 338

Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 11709 of 2025 Page 5 of 17

Counsel further submitted that the question whether

Sections 17A and 19 of the PC Act are procedural or

substantive remains pending consideration before this

Court in B.S Yeddiyurappa vs. A. Alam Pasha and Others

8

.

4.2 On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate

General for the State of Rajasthan Ms. Sansriti Pathak

submitted that Section 17A does not provide for blanket

immunity in respect of all actions taken by the public

servants and that those actions and conducts which are

criminal in nature or are unrelated to their official duties

cannot be protected. Referring to essential ingredients

necessary to be satisfied for applying Section 17A of the Act,

learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent-

State submitted that the case involved the allegation of

demand of illegal gratification and the FIR was filed for such

alleged criminal act, and that it was in no way part of the

discharge of official functions by the appellant nor relatable

to any recommendation or decision in discharge of his duty.

8

2025 SCC OnLine SC 836

Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 11709 of 2025 Page 6 of 17

4.2.1 It was submitted that the appellant did not

challenge the FIR which was filed in the year 2021. It was

highlighted that on 08.12.2023, sanction for prosecution

under Section 19 of the PC Act was granted and a

chargesheet was subsequently filed on 19.01.2024, framing

the charge under Section 7 of the PC Act.

4.2.2 It was next submitted that the reliance placed by

the appellant on the decision of this Court in Yashwant

Sinha (supra) was misplaced, inasmuch as it has no bearing

on the facts of the present case when Section 17A is not

attracted at all. It was submitted that the same way,

Yeddyurappa (supra) would also not apply as none of the

questions framed therein are relevant for the present matter.

It was submitted that the issue regarding validity of Section

17A of the Act has been referred to larger bench by judgment

and order dated 13.01.2026 passed by this Court in Centre

for Public Interest Litigation vs. Union of India in W.P.

(C) No. 1373 of 2018, but the said aspect has no relevance,

as Section 17A of the PC Act is not attracted at all in the

facts of the case.

Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 11709 of 2025 Page 7 of 17

5. Recapitulating the facts, FIR No. 174 of 2021 was

lodged on 04.06.2021 on the basis of the complaint dated

22.04.2021 made by the complainant Devendra Kumar,

alleging an offence against the appellant under Section 7A

of the PC Act, inter alia, that the appellant demanded bribe

in the name of Superintendent of Police. The appellant was

arrested on 01.09.2021. On 08.12.2023, sanction for

prosecution under Section 19 of the PC Act was granted, and

a chargesheet bearing No. 06 of 2024 dated 19.01.2024

came to be filed in respect of the aforesaid offence under the

PC Act against the appellant. On 12.09.2024, the Trial Court

framed a charge against the appellant.

5.1 Adverting to Section 17A of the PC Act at the outset,

it reads as under,

“17-A. Enquiry or Inquiry or investigation of

offences relatable to recommendations made or

decision taken by public servant in discharge of

official functions or duties.-

(1) No police officer shall conduct any enquiry or

inquiry or investigation into any offence alleged to

have been committed by a public servant under this

Act, 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-

Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 11709 of 2025 Page 8 of 17

(a) in the case of a person who is or was

employed, at the time when the offence

was alleged to have been committed, in

connection with the affairs of the Union,

of that Government;

(b) in the case of a person who is or was

employed, at the time when the offence

was alleged to have been committed, in

connection with the affairs of a State, of

that Government;

(c) in the case of any other person, of the

authority competent to remove him

from his office, at the time when the

offence was alleged to have been

committed:

Provided 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:

Provided further that the concerned authority shall

convey its decision under this section within a

period of three months, which may, for reasons to

be recorded in writing by such authority, be

extended by a further period of one month.”

5.1.1 A bare perusal of the aforesaid Section goes to show

that it 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 P C 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

Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 11709 of 2025 Page 9 of 17

duties of such public servant, against whom enquiry or

investigation is to be initiated.

5.1.2 If those conditions are satisfied, a previous approval of

the competent authority as per sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c) would

be necessary. The First Proviso of the section says that no such

approval shall 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

shall convey its decision under this provision within stipulated

time, which is extendable by recording reasons for such

extension.

5.2 In Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Santosh

Karnani and Another

9

, the appellant-Central Bureau of

Investigation was aggrieved by the order of the High Court

of Gujarat whereby the High Court allowed the anticipatory

bail application of the respondent in connection with the FIR

which was in respect of the offence under Section 7 of the

PC Act.

9

(2023) SCC OnLine SC 427

Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 11709 of 2025 Page 10 of 17

5.2.1 The contention that the prior approval of

investigation, as per under Section 17A of the PC Act was

not obtained and thus the proceedings initiated against the

respondent were vitiated, was rejected stating that it had no

legal basis,

“Section 17A merely contemplates that police

officers shall not conduct any enquiry, inquiry 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 in discharge of official functions or

duties, without the previous approval of the

competent authority. The first proviso to the section

states that such approval is not necessary in cases

involving arrest of the person on the spot on the

charges of accepting undue advantage.”

(Para 33)

5.2.2 The accusation against the appellant in the

aforementioned case did not involve any recommendation

made or decision taken by him in his official capacity as a

public servant. This Court observed, which observations

equally apply to the facts of the present case.

“As may be seen, the first proviso to Section 17A

refers to cases wherein a public servant is charged

with acceptance of an undue advantage or attempt

thereof. A prior approval or sanction to investigate

such an officer in a trap case is likely to defeat the

very purpose of trap and the investigation, which is

not the underlying intention of the legislature. The

investigation against Respondent No. 1, being an

accused of demanding a bribe, did not require any

Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 11709 of 2025 Page 11 of 17

previous approval of the Central Government. That

apart, the accusation against Respondent No. 1

does not revolve around any recommendations

made or decisions taken by him in his quasi -

judicial or administrative capacity.”

(Para 34)

5.3 The decision in Santosh Karnani (supra) was

quoted to be relied on in Surendra Dhariwal vs. The State

of Rajasthan and Another Etc. which was Criminal Appeal

Nos. 3717-3718 of 2025 decided on 25.08.2025. Again, it

was a case wherein the FIR was registered for the offence

punishable under Section 7 of the PC Act and Sections 384,

120-B and 201 of the IPC.

5.4 The judicial view on the above score is consistent

and categorical. Yet in another and more recent decision of

this Court in Anil Daima Etc. vs. State of Rajasthan and

Others

10

, the petitioner before this Court was prosecuted for

the offence punishable under Section 7 and Section 7A

respectively of the PC Act. It was also a case for demand of

illegal gratification as in the present case.

5.4.1 This Court dispelled the contention about the

applicability of Section 17A of the Act, observing,

10

2026 SCC OnLine SC 807

Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 11709 of 2025 Page 12 of 17

“The entire submission of the learned counsel is

thoroughly misconceived. 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.”

(Para 7)

5.5 In Shankara Bhat vs. State of Kerala and

Others

11

, the Kerala High Court observed that Section

197(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Section

17A of the PC Act though operate in two different fields and

in distinct situations, they have, in common, the aspect of

offence committed by the public servant while acting or

purporting to act in discharge of his official duty. It was

stated that the commission of crime by public servant which

had no connection with his official duty, cannot be

considered to be falling within the ambit of Section 17A of

the PC Act.

5.5.1 It was stated that the offences like

misappropriation, falsification of accounts, cheating,

criminal breach of trust, receiving bribes, etc. are beyond

11

2021 SCC OnLine Ker 16357

Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 11709 of 2025 Page 13 of 17

the scope of the provision. The same dictum of law was

reiterated by the same High Court in M.R. Simon vs. State

of Kerala

12

.

6. An unequivocal position of law emanates from the

above decisions about the scope and extent of applicability

of Section 17A of the PC Act which contemplates taking a

prior approval before investigation or inquiry against a

public servant. The language of the provision itself outlines

and circumscribes the ambit of operation of the provision.

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.

6.1 In order that the provisions of Section 17A of the PC

Act applies, there has to be a “decision” or

“recommendation” by a public servant against whom an

12

2024 SCC OnLine Ker 7255

Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 11709 of 2025 Page 14 of 17

enquiry or investigation is to be initiated. Such “decision” or

“recommendation” shall be a “decision” taken or

“recommendation” made by such public servant in

discharge of his official functions or duties. 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.

6.2 Thus, from the plain language of the provision of

Section 17A, it is evident that the provision is confined to be

applied in the situations where there is a recommendation

or a decision taken by a public servant in discharge of his

official duties. The allegation against the appellant in the

present case is that of a criminal act, namely that the

appellant demanded illegal gratification of Rs.1.5 lakh. The

conduct on the part of the appellant, by no stretch of

imagination, can be treated as part of the discharge of his

Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 11709 of 2025 Page 15 of 17

official functions. It was not in any way relatable to

recommendation or a decision taken by the appellant in

discharge of his official duties but was an act unrelated to

his official duty.

6.3 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.

7. Disposing of the submission of the learned counsel

for the appellant that the issue regarding the validity of

Section 17A of the PC Act is referred to a larger bench by

this Court as per order dated 13.01.2026 passed in Centre

for Public Interest Litigation (supra), it is to be stated that

Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 11709 of 2025 Page 16 of 17

the reference has no connection with the issue involved in

the present case since the present case could be decided

without awaiting the reference, when Section 17A of the PC

Act has no applicability at all.

8. In the impugned judgment and order, the High

Court has noted that subsequent sanction for prosecution

under Section 19 of the PC Act has been taken . A faint

attempt was made on behalf of the appellant to contend that

it was a belated sanction obtained. Evaluating the said

aspect in the light of the operative facts in the present case,

firstly as held above, Section 17A has no application. As far

as Section 19 is concerned, sanction was taken as alleged

before the cognizance was taken, it would amount to mere

an irregularity. It cannot be said to be vitiating the entire

criminal proceedings and the trial that would take place, on

the count of said aspect as well. The trial would be

conducted on its merits, where the respective parties would

raise their rival contentions.

9. The High Court was justified in dismissing the

Criminal Revision Petition of the appellant. The judgment

Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 11709 of 2025 Page 17 of 17

and order of the High Court warrants no interference. It is

upheld.

10. For the reasons recorded by the High Court and for

those supplied additionally in this judgment by this Court,

it is ruled that Section 17A of the PC Act would not be

attracted in the facts of the case and that want of prior

sanction thereunder by the competent authority, has in no

manner vitiated the initiation of criminal proceedings

against the appellant.

11. The appeal stands dismissed.

Any interlocutory application, if pending, shall not

survive in view of the dismissal of the appeal.

..………………………...J.

[S.V.N BHATTI]

………………………….J.

[N.V. ANJARIA]

NEW DELHI;

OCTOBER 16, 2026.