Sri D Anil S/O Late S. Dorairaju vs. The Superintendent Of Police

Held

The Court held that the petitioners had not made out a case for interference with the FIR dated April 10, 2019. The Court reasoned that the first proviso to Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, clearly states that no prior approval is necessary for cases involving the 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. Given the prima facie material evidence, including video evidence, relating to the demand of ₹ten lakhs, the Court found that the first proviso was applicable. Therefore, the requirement of obtaining prior approval under Section 17A of the PC Act was not warranted in this instance. The Court also referred to the Delhi High Court's decision in *Devender Kumar vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Ors.*, which supported the interpretation that prior approval is not necessary when the alleged act of a public servant is ex-facie criminal or constitutes an offense. The Court accordingly dismissed the writ petitions and vacated the interim protection granted to the petitioners.

Facts

The petitioners, who are officials of the Customs Department, filed writ petitions seeking to quash an FIR registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on April 10, 2019. The FIR pertains to allegations of demanding a bribe of ₹ten lakhs to release imported goods. The complainant allegedly provided video evidence of this demand, which was authenticated by the Director General of Vigilance – Customs, Hyderabad, following advice from the Central Vigilance Commission. The petitioners challenged the FIR's validity, citing non-adherence to Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which requires prior approval from a competent authority before commencing an inquiry or investigation against a public servant. The respondents argued that the FIR was filed pursuant to a judicial pronouncement and that Section 17A of the PC Act, as interpreted by the Delhi High Court, did not vitiate the proceedings in this case.

Key Issues

1. Whether the FIR registered by the CBI is liable to be quashed for non-adherence to Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which mandates prior approval from a competent authority before initiating an inquiry or investigation against a public servant, particularly when the alleged offense involves the demand and acceptance of a bribe. Petitioner's Argument: The petitioners contended that Section 17A of the PC Act, incorporated on July 26, 2018, requires prior approval from the competent authority before any inquiry or investigation commences, and this approval was not obtained before the FIR was filed. They argued that the FIR is therefore invalid. Revenue/State's Argument: The respondents argued that the filing of the FIR was a consequence of a judicial pronouncement and that the first proviso to Section 17A of the PC Act exempts cases involving the arrest of a person on the spot for accepting or attempting to accept any undue advantage. They relied on the Delhi High Court's interpretation in *Devender Kumar vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Ors.*, which held that Section 17A does not apply when the act of a public servant is ex-facie criminal or constitutes an offense, and that the proviso covers cases of accepting or attempting to accept undue personal advantage. They asserted that the video evidence of bribe demand made the prior approval requirement inapplicable.