Prior approval of the Government is required for inquiry or investigation into offences committed by public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, where the alleged offence is relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken by such public servant in discharge of official functions or duties.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material available on record.

2. These three misc. petitions involve identical question of facts and law and are thus being decided together by this common order.

3. These misc. petitions have been preferred by the accused petitioners herein seeking quashing of the FIR No. 1/2018 registered at the Police Station CPS ACB, Jaipur, Outpost Nagaur for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC and Sections 13(l)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1988')-

4. The respondent No.2 lodged a complaint to the District Collector, Nagaur and also to the Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan and the I.G.-First, A.C.B., Jaipur alleging that wholesale irregularities and illegalities were committed in the sale 75 bighas of land made in favour of Kailash Chandra Agarwal and Nand Bihari (Petitioners of Misc. Petition No.159/2018) and that the revenue officers concerned i.e. Land Record Inspector Chhotaram, Patwari Ramratan and Tehsildar Tejmal Choudhary, while recommending the sale deeds, had hatched a conspiracy to facilitate the fraudulent sale and thereby, they were responsible for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC and Sections 13(l)(d) and 13(2) of the Act of 1988. The complaint so lodged by the respondent No.2 was acted upon and after verification thereof, the FIR No. 1/2018 has been registered at the Police Station, CPS ACB, Jaipur, Outpost Nagaur and investigation thereof is being undertaken against the petitioners herein who have approached this Court seeking quashing of the impugned FIR and all subsequent proceedings sought to be taken thereunder.

5. Shri Anil Kumar Singh, Advocate representing the petitioners Kailash Chandra Agarwal and Nand Bihari (Misc. Petition No.159/2018) and Shri G.R. Punia, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Rajendra Prasad, Advocate representing the Revenue Officers Chota Ram & Ramratan (Misc. Petition No.953/2018) and Tejmal Choudhary (Misc. Petition No. 1163/2018), vehemently and fervently urged that the registration of the impugned FIR by the ACB on the basis of a private complaint is absolutely illegal and without justification. In support of this contention, learned counsel representing the petitioners relied upon the following Supreme Court decisions:

(i) Anil Kumar Singh & Ors. vs. M.K. Aiyappa & Anr., reported in AIR 2014, SC (Supp) 1801, and

(ii) L. Narayana Swamy vs. State of Karnataka & Ors., reported in AIR 2016 SC 4125.

They also urged that fresh Section 17A has been inserted in the Prevention of Corruption Act by way of amendment brought around in the year 2018 whereby, inquiry or investigation cannot be undertaken by any police officer under the Act of 1988 "without the prior permission of the competent Government" where the alleged offence is relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken by a public servant in discharge of official functions or duties. They urged that in the present case, the investigating officer is proceeding to investigate the matter against the public servants for the offences under the P.C. Act and the private individuals without the prior approval of the Government and as such, the impugned FIR deserves to be quashed.

6. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and Shri Dhirendra Singh, Advocate appearing for the complainant, vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioners' counsel. Nonetheless, they too are not in a position to dispute the fact that the FIR has been lodged on the basis of a private complaint and that no approval of the competent Government was taken before initiating the inquiry and registering the formal FIR. Hon'ble the Supreme Court examined an identical controversy in the case of Anil Kumar (supra) and laid down that no direction can be given by a Magistrate to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to investigate the complaint of corrupti