Amassing Disproportionate Assets Not Relatable To Discharge Of Public Functions; Sanction U/S 17A PC Act Not Needed: Gauhati High Court
The Gauhati High Court has reiterated that prior approval under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is not required before investigating allegations of disproportionate assets, as such allegations are not relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken by a public servant in the discharge of official functions. [2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 100] Justice Mridul Kumar Kalita...
The Gauhati High Court has reiterated that prior approval under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is not required before investigating allegations of disproportionate assets, as such allegations are not relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken by a public servant in the discharge of official functions. [2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 100]
Justice Mridul Kumar Kalita made the observation while dismissing a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed by retired Northeast Frontier Railway Deputy Chief Engineer Ranjit Das, seeking quashing of the FIR, prosecution sanction, chargesheet and criminal proceedings pending against him in a disproportionate assets case.
The Court observed:
"...the accusation against the present petitioner is of amassing wealth disproportionate to his known source of income and as such the offence alleged is not relatable to any specific recommendation made or decision taken by the petitioner in discharge of his official function or duties. Hence, the question of taking prior approval of competent authority before initiating investigation, under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, does not arise in this case and as such no such previous approval is necessary in the instant case under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988."
An FIR was registered alleging that during the check period between January 1, 2013 and December 31, 2019, the petitioner possessed disproportionate assets worth ₹47,92,977, amounting to 47.53% of his known sources of income. Following investigation, the CBI filed a chargesheet and the Special Judge framed charges under Sections 13(2), 13(1)(e) and 13(1)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that the investigation had been initiated without prior approval under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He also challenged the validity of the prosecution sanction granted under Section 19, questioned the CBI's computation of his income and expenditure, and pointed to discrepancies between the FIR and the chargesheet regarding the percentage of disproportionate assets.
Rejecting the challenge based on Section 17A, the High Court held that the provision requires prior approval only where the alleged offence is relatable to a recommendation made or decision taken by a public servant while discharging official functions. Since the allegation in the present case was one of amassing disproportionate assets, the requirement of prior approval under Section 17A was held to be inapplicable.
As regards the challenge to the prosecution sanction under Section 19, the Court noted that sanction had been granted by the competent authority on October 20, 2023 after considering the relevant materials. It held that the petitioner's contention regarding non-application of mind by the sanctioning authority could be examined by the trial court and not in proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS, as doing so would amount to conducting a "mini-trial."
The Court also declined to examine the petitioner's objections relating to the calculation of disproportionate assets, the income of his wife, and the discrepancy between the FIR and the chargesheet. It observed that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, the High Court cannot undertake a full-fledged inquiry or appreciate evidence to determine whether the case would ultimately result in conviction or acquittal, as those issues must be left to the trial court.
Holding that the case did not present any exceptional circumstances warranting exercise of its inherent jurisdiction and that continuation of the trial would not amount to an abuse of the process of the Court, the High Court dismissed the criminal petition.
Case Name: Ranjit Das v. The Central Bureau of Investigation & Ors.
LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 100
Case Number: Criminal Petition No. 1416 of 2024