2025 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 17256

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
KULDEEP MATHUR
CHANDRA KANT RAMAWAT – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
CRLMP / 5866 / 2025

Under Section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, prior approval for investigation is not required when the allegation is based on direct electronic evidence of bribe demand, not solely on official recommendations or decisions.

Headnote:(A) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended 2018) - Section 17-A, Section 17 - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 528 - Quashing of FIR - Requirement of prior approval under Section 17-A for investigation into offences relatable to recommendations or decisions taken by public servant in discharge of official functions - Exception for cases involving arrest on the spot on charge of accepting or attempting to accept undue advantage - Where prima facie electronic evidence (voice recording) of demand of bribe exists, investigation is not barred by Section 17-A merely because the allegation also relates to an official decision or recommendation - Competence of police inspector to investigate under the Act - Notification of Governor of Rajasthan dated 10.02.1978 authorizing Inspectors of Anti-Corruption Bureau to conduct enquiry, inquiry, investigation and arrest.

(B) Section 17-A of the P.C. Act, 2018 - The expression 'recommendation' and 'decision' refers to reasoned, objective and non-arbitrary exercise of discretion in quasi-judicial or pure administrative capacity - It cannot be used as a tool to protect corrupt officials who have made recommendations or decisions for personal benefit - In cases where accusation is to be inferred solely from quasi-judicial/administrative decisions, prior approval is mandatory - However, where electronic evidence like voice recording is available against the accused and the accusation is not to be assessed solely from the official decision, it would be a travesty of justice to bar prosecution. (Paras 11, 12)

(C) Investigation by Inspector - The Governor of Rajasthan issued notification No.F1/6(40)(Group-5)/77 on 10.02.1978 authorizing Police Inspectors working with A.C.B. to conduct enquiry, inquiry, investigation and arrest in relation to offences under the P.C. Act - Hence, the investigation conducted by an Inspector is valid. (Para 15)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a public servant holding the post of Coordinator, was accused of demanding gratification along with co-accused Khushboo Gehlot to settle a complaint against the complainant Brijesh Meena. The A.C.B. conducted a trap and caught the co-accused red-handed. The petitioner was later arrested. The petitioner sought quashing of FIR on grounds of lack of prior approval under Section 17-A of the P.C. Act, 2018, and that the investigation was conducted by an Inspector instead of a Deputy Superintendent of Police. The court found from the case diary that telephonic conversation between the co-accused and the petitioner regarding acceptance of bribe had been recorded, indicating prima facie complicitness.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the requirement of prior approval under Section 17-A is not applicable where the allegation is supported by direct electronic evidence of demand and acceptance of bribe, and not merely based on quasi-judicial/administrative decisions. The investigation by an Inspector was authorized by a notification. The question of whether any work of the complainant was pending is a matter of fact for trial. Hence, no ground for quashing the FIR.

Issues: (1) Whether the FIR and further proceedings are liable to be quashed for lack of prior approval under Section 17-A of the P.C. Act, 2018? (2) Whether the investigation by an Inspector is invalid?

Ratio Decidendi: Where the accusation of corruption is based on prima facie electronic evidence (voice recording) of demand of bribe and not solely on the evaluation of official recommendations or decisions, the mandatory prior approval under Section 17-A of the P.C. Act, 2018 is not required. The exception for on-spot arrest and the existence of direct evidence take the case out of the protective ambit of Section 17-A. Result : Petition dismissed.