Court’s Decision
The Kerala High Court dismissed the petition seeking quashing of the FIR under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, filed by the petitioner (a Sub Registrar and the second accused) in a bribery trap case under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120B of IPC, holding that prior approval under Section 17A of the PC Act was not required since the case involved on-spot arrest during a trap for accepting bribe.
Facts
The Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) registered an FIR on 13 June 2023 based on a complaint from a licensed document writer alleging that a peon (first accused) and the Sub Registrar (second accused, petitioner) demanded a bribe of Rs. 4,500 to register three sale deeds. The complainant, unable to pay immediately, was asked to pay Rs. 4,000 on the next day for the remaining document. A trap was arranged, and on 13 June 2023, the complainant handed over the bribe money, which was accepted by the first accused in the record room upon a signal from the petitioner. The first accused was arrested at 5:25 PM, and the petitioner was arrested at 7:15 PM on the same day at the office.
Issues
Whether prior approval under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018), was mandatory for investigation and arrest in the present trap case.
Whether the petition seeking quashment of the FIR was maintainable after the petitioner had previously withdrawn a similar petition.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner argued that under Section 17A of the PC Act, no inquiry, enquiry, or investigation could proceed against a public servant for acts done in the discharge of official duties without prior approval of the competent authority. It was contended that the alleged act pertained to the discharge of official functions, and since no prior approval was obtained, the FIR and subsequent proceedings were void. Reliance was placed on Yashwant Sinha v. CBI (2020) 2 SCC 338, Ashoo Surendranath Tewari v. DSP, EOW, CBI (2020) 9 SCC 636, and Yogesh Nayyar v. State of MP (ILR 2023 MP 1974) to argue that proceedings without prior approval were illegal.
Respondent’s Arguments
The prosecution contended that the proviso to Section 17A clearly exempts cases where a public servant is arrested on the spot for accepting or attempting to accept undue advantage, making prior approval unnecessary. It was argued that the petitioner had signalled the complainant to enter the record room where the bribe was accepted by the co-accused, and both were arrested from the office. The prosecution cited CBI v. Santosh Karnani (2023 KHC 6391) to emphasise that requiring prior approval for trap cases would defeat the purpose of anti-corruption laws.
Analysis of the Law
The Court examined:
- Section 17A of the PC Act, 1988, introduced in 2018, requiring prior approval for investigation into recommendations or decisions made by public servants in official functions.
- The first proviso to Section 17A, which exempts cases involving on-the-spot arrest for accepting or attempting to accept bribes from requiring prior approval.
- The difference between acts done in the discharge of official duties and the act of accepting bribes, which is not protected by Section 17A.
- The Supreme Court’s position in Yashwant Sinha and the contrary interpretation in Nara Chandrababu Naidu v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2024), noting the issue is pending before a Constitution Bench.
- The binding nature of the proviso to Section 17A in the context of trap cases to prevent the nullification of anti-corruption enforcement.
Precedent Analysis
The judgment analysed:
- Yashwant Sinha (2020): Affirmed that Section 17A bars investigation without prior approval for acts in the discharge of official functions but recognised exceptions.
- CBI v. Santosh Karnani (2023): Held that prior approval under Section 17A is not required in trap cases involving on-the-spot arrest for accepting bribes.
- Ashoo Surendranath Tewari (2020) and Yogesh Nayyar (2023): Considered on procedural compliance under the PC Act.
- Nara Chandrababu Naidu (2024): Recognised interpretational divergence under Section 17A, pending before the Constitution Bench.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court held that:
- Accepting or attempting to accept bribes cannot be construed as acts done in discharge of official duties, thus falling outside the protection of Section 17A.
- The first proviso to Section 17A applies squarely to the case, exempting the requirement of prior approval for investigation and arrest.
- The petitioner’s prior withdrawal of an identical quashment plea creates estoppel, barring re-litigation of the same grounds and reliefs before the Court.
- Proceeding with the investigation and prosecution does not constitute an abuse of process when the statutory exception under Section 17A applies.
The Court stated: “The first proviso to Section 17A operates to exempt trap cases involving on-the-spot arrest for bribery from the requirement of prior approval, ensuring the integrity of anti-corruption measures.”
Conclusion
The High Court:
- Dismissed the criminal miscellaneous petition seeking quashment of the FIR.
- Held that the investigation and proceedings under the PC Act and IPC in the bribery trap case against the petitioner are lawful.
- Directed the trial court to proceed in accordance with the law based on the final report already filed.
Implications
This judgment:
- Reinforces the exception under Section 17A of the PC Act, enabling effective trap operations against public servants.
- Prevents misuse of Section 17A to derail anti-corruption investigations and prosecutions.
- Clarifies procedural compliance in trap cases under the PC Act and strengthens vigilance operations.
Short Notes on Referred Cases
Yashwant Sinha (2020): Clarified Section 17A’s bar on investigation without prior approval except in certain situations.
CBI v. Santosh Karnani (2023): Affirmed that trap cases involving arrest for bribery do not require prior approval.
Nara Chandrababu Naidu (2024): Raised interpretational questions on Section 17A pending before Constitution Bench.
FAQs
1. Is prior approval under Section 17A mandatory for trap cases involving on-spot arrest in bribery cases?
No, the first proviso to Section 17A exempts such cases from requiring prior approval.
2. Does accepting a bribe fall within acts done in the discharge of official functions under Section 17A?
No, accepting a bribe is not considered an act in the discharge of official duties.
3. Can the same quashment petition be filed again after withdrawal of an earlier one on identical grounds?
No, principles of estoppel apply to prevent re-litigation on the same grounds.