[Prevention Of Corruption Act] Preliminary Inquiry Before Obtaining Approval From Competent Authority Violates Section 17A: Karnataka HC

The Karnataka High Court has held that collection of materials by the Lokayukta police before registration of FIR under provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, would amount to a violation of Section 17A of the Act.Justice M Nagaprasanna held thus while partly allowing a petition filed by S Laxmi and others who work with Pattana Panchayat, Jagalur, Davangere District, had approached the court seeking a declaration that the inquiry/investigation conducted pursuant to registration of a complaint on 20-04-2019 as null and void. The petitioners contended that for three years the Lokayukta has conducted an inquiry and investigation and it collected materials against the petitioners, which was contrary to law. Petitioners explained that the procedure was that after receipt of the complaint, a prior approval is taken, FIR is registered and then the investigation commences. It was said that none of these procedures were followed and permission was being sought under Section 17A of the Act after collection of materials. The Lokayukta contended that what was done is a preliminary inquiry. Now to register the crime, they have sought permission under Section 17A of the Act. Therefore, there is no procedural violation. Merely, because a plethora of documents are collected, it does not mean that it is an investigation as known to law.Findings: The bench referred to Section 17A and noted that no Police Officer shall conduct any enquiry, inquiry or investigation, into any offence alleged to have been committed by a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act, where the alleged offence is relatable to any recommendation made or decisions taken by such public servant in discharge of his official functions or duties, without the previous approval of the Competent Authority. Then it said “In the light of Section 17A creating a protective filter for vexatious and frivolous prosecution and complaints to pass muster to the rigors of Section 17A, I am of the considered view that it must be observed with complete strictness bearing in mind public interest, and protection available to such officers against whom offences are alleged, failing which many a time it would result in a vexatious prosecution. This cannot however, be considered as a protective shield for the guilty, but a safeguard for the innocent. Therefore, its observance becomes mandatory.” Rejecting the ground of preliminary inquiry, the bench said, “Lokayukta acting upon the anonymous complaint embarked upon elaborate enquiry, summoning officers, collecting documents and building a dossier, all before seeking an approval under Section 17A of the Act. To describe such fact finding as 'preliminary' would be to trivialize the legislative intent behind Section 17A.” It added “Even if it is construed that what the Lokayukta has done is a preliminary enquiry, it could not have been done without two instances taking place – one, approval under Section 17A of the Act, and two, the registration of a FIR. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination, what the Lokayukta has done, can be considered to be some sort of a preliminary enquiry. It is a detailed enquiry or detailed investigation as found in Section 17A of the Act. If that had to be done, prior approval was imperative.” Following this it held “Therefore, all the acts done prior to Section 17A approval becomes null and void, as in the considered view of the Court it does not meet the necessities of Section 17A, as the entire edifice of enquiry erected prior to 17-06-2023 the day on which approval under Section 17A is granted, is built on procedural quicksand and cannot be sustained.” However, it clarified that if there are allegations of corruption against them, investigation in the least, is a must. "The veil of approval under Section 17A is now in place. Therefore, by declaring that what is conducted prior to the grant of approval being null and void, I deem it appropriate to reserve liberty to the respondents to now investigate into the matter, in a manner known to law, and take the issue to its logical conclusion,” the Court said.Accordingly it partly allowed the petition. Appearance: Advocate Venkatesh P. Dalwai for Petitioner.Advocate Venkatesh Arabatti for RespondentCitation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 113Case Title: S Laxmi & Other And THE ADDL. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE. Case No: WRIT PETITION No.11933 OF 2023Click Here To Read/Download Order

[Prevention Of Corruption Act] Preliminary Inquiry Before Obtaining Approval From Competent Authority Violates Section 17A: Karnataka HC

Mustafa Plumber

Tags