JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP MEHTA, J.

1. The instant misc. petition has been filed by the accused petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the F.I.R. No. 407/2021 lodged at the Police Station Anti Corruption Bureau, Udaipur for the offences under Sections 7 and 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Amendment) Act, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for brevity).

2. Learned senior counsel Shri Shishodia assisted by Shri Abhijeet Sharma appearing for the accused petitioner through video conferencing vehemently and fervently urges that the registration of the impugned F.I.R. is absolutely illegal because no previous approval to launch the investigation was taken by the Investigating Officer from the appropriate Government as per the mandate of Section 17A of the Act. He further submits that registration of the impugned F.I.R. is also contrary to the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of T.T. Antony vs. State of Kerala and Others, (2001) 6 SCC 181 and Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah vs. The Central Bureau of Investigation and Others, (2013) 6 SCC 348 as the impugned F.I.R. is nothing but a second F.I.R. as it has been registered on the basis of the material collected during investigation of the earlier F.I.R. No. 183/2021 lodged at the Police Station Anti Corruption Bureau, Udaipur. The parcel of facts involved in both the F.I.R. is so intrinsically interlinked that the impugned F.I.R. should not have been registered and the allegations levelled therein should have been investigated in the first F.I.R. He also placed reliance on the judgment passed by this Court in S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 159/2018, Kailash Chandra Agarwal and Another vs. State of Rajasthan and Another pronounced on 7.4.2020 and craved acceptance of the petition.

3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor, vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He pointed out that during the course of investigation of the F.I.R. No. 183/2021, some mobile phones were seized and on an analysis of the conversations saved therein, further transactions regarding exchange of illegal gratifications came to light, which formed a distinct series of offending acts pertaining to demand and acceptance of illegal gratification punishable under Sections 7 and 8 of the Act. Hence, as per learned Public Prosecutor, the impugned F.I.R. is not a second F.I.R. on same facts and is rather a fresh F.I.R. in relation to acceptance of illegal gratification and there is no illegality in registration thereof.

4. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced at the Bar and have gone through the material available on record.

5. Law is well settled by a catena of decisions two of which (T.T. Antony and Amitbhai Shah) have been relied upon by Shri Shishodia that second F.I.R. cannot be registered on the same facts. Section 17A which was introduced in the Prevention of Corruption Act by Act No. 16 of 2018 clearly postulates that enquiry or inquiry or investigation of offences relatable to recommendations made or decisions taken by public servant in discharge of official functions or duties cannot be undertaken by a Police Officer without the previous approval of the concerned government. However, the Section does not prohibit registration of an FIR. Undoubtedly, demand and acceptance of bribe are not acts relatable to recommendations made or decisions taken by the public servant in the discharge of official functions or duties. Thus, the embargo of previous approval postulated in Section 17A of the Act would not apply in cases where the investigation is sought for into the allegations of demand and acceptance of bribe.

6. In addition thereto, it may be mentioned that Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act which reads as below:

“17A. Enquiry or Inquiry or investigation of offences relatable to recommendations made or decision taken by public servant in discharge of official functions or duties.-No pol