[Prevention Of Corruption Act] Violating Provision For Prior Approval In Initial Probe Does Not Vitiate Entire Process: J&K High Court

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court has refused to quash an FIR registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act against certain public officials, despite acknowledging that the initial phase of investigation was conducted without the mandatory prior approval under Section 17A of the PC Act.A bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar held that violation of Section 17A in the initial phase of investigation is not sufficient to quash the FIR or the proceedings, especially once the requisite sanction was subsequently obtained.The court observed that “there is nothing on record to show that the petitioners suffered any prejudice due to the absence of sanction during the initial phase of the investigation."Referring to Section 465 CrPC, the Court also noted that unless an error in sanction results in a failure of justice, it cannot invalidate the outcome of the investigation.The Court also rejected the argument that the investigation should not have proceeded after the previous investigating officer had expressed an opinion that no case was made out against the petitioners.It clarified that since no closure report had been filed before a magistrate, the matter remained within the domain of the investigating agency and Section 173(8) CrPC was not attracted.The court held that “It is well within the jurisdiction of the Investigating Agency to revisit and differ with the opinion of the previous investigating officer and initiate a fresh probe.” The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decisions in Yashwant Sinha v. CBI and Nara Chandrababu Naidu v. State of Andhra Pradesh, which held that absence of sanction under Section 17A does not automatically vitiate the FIR, and the prosecution can seek sanction at a later stage.BACKGROUND:The petitioners have filed the present writ petition challenging FIR registered for offences under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120-B of the IPC. The FIR arose out of a Joint Surprise Check conducted by the ACB to probe allegations of bribery and corruption in the ARTO Office, Anantnag. It was alleged that certain touts and agents were operating in active connivance with the officials of the ARTO Office, facilitating issuance of driving licenses, fitness certificates, and registration documents in exchange for illegal gratification. During the check, application forms were found to bear pencil-marked abbreviations indicating names of touts, and statements of several applicants confirmed that bribes had been paid through these agents. It was further revealed that tests were being conducted in a hurried and superficial manner to favour candidates recommended by the touts. Social media chats also allegedly showed coordination between the touts and ARTO officials. The FIR accuses the officers and touts of acting under a well-knit conspiracy to abuse official positions for pecuniary benefits.APPEARANCE: Syed Faisal Qadiri, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Khursheed, Advocate for PetitionersMr. Mohsin Qadiri, Sr. AAG, with Ms. Nadiya Abdullah Advocate FOR Respondent.Case-Title: ASIF AMIN CHALKOO & ORS vs UT of J&KCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 260Click Here To Read/Download Order

[Prevention Of Corruption Act] Violating Provision For Prior Approval In Initial Probe Does Not Vitiate Entire Process: J&K High Court

Aleem Syeed

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Aleem Syeed

[Prevention Of Corruption Act] Violating Provision For Prior Approval In Initial Probe Does Not Vitiate Entire Process: J&K High Court

Aleem Syeed

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Aleem Syeed

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers