Demanding a Bribe Is Not an Official Decision: Supreme Court Says Section 17A PC Act Approval Not Needed

Case at a glance: The Supreme Court has dismissed a police constable’s plea that his prosecution for demanding a Rs 1.5 lakh bribe was vitiated for want of prior approval under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It held that Section 17A protects only offences relating to a recommendation or decision taken in discharge of official functions, and a bribe demand is a pure criminal act outside it. A belated Section 19 sanction was held to be a curable irregularity.

The appellant, a constable posted in the office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sirohi, was accused by a fellow constable, through an email complaint of 22 April 2021 to the Anti-Corruption Bureau, of demanding Rs 1.5 lakh on behalf of the Superintendent of Police. The appellant said the complaint was retaliation for his own allegation that the complainant had taken money from accused persons during an investigation trip to Madurai.

An FIR was registered on 4 June 2021, sanction under Section 19 was granted on 8 December 2023, a chargesheet under Section 7 followed in January 2024, and the Special Judge, ACB, Pali framed a charge on 12 September 2024. The Rajasthan High Court dismissed his revision on 26 March 2025.

The Key Question Before the Court

Is prior approval under Section 17A of the PC Act required before investigating a public servant accused of demanding a bribe, and does a belated Section 19 sanction vitiate the trial?

The Two Conditions of Section 17A

Justice Anjaria explained that Section 17A bars inquiry or investigation without approval only where the offence ‘relates to’ a recommendation made or decision taken by the public servant in discharge of official functions. “The Section cannot be viewed to have an omnibus application.” Two elements must coexist: a decision or recommendation, and its being taken in discharge of official duties.

Following CBI v. Santosh Karnani, (2023) 04 SC CK 0039, Surendra Dhariwal and Anil Daima, and Kerala High Court rulings in Shankara Bhat and M.R. Simon, the Court held that the alleged demand was “a pure criminal act unconnected to discharge of the official functions or duties.” The pending questions in Yashwant Sinha, (2019) 11 SC CK 0041, B.S. Yeddyurappa and the reference on Section 17A’s validity did not affect the outcome. As for Section 19, the timing of sanction was an irregularity, not a fatal defect.

What the Court Actually Held

• Section 17A PC Act was not attracted on the facts.
• Want of prior approval did not vitiate the proceedings.
• A belated Section 19 sanction is an irregularity that does not vitiate the trial.
• The appeal was dismissed and the trial will proceed on merits.

Why This Judgment Matters

• It reinforces that Section 17A is not a blanket shield for public servants.
• It separates bribe demands from protected official decision-making.
• It allows trials to proceed despite pending larger-bench references on Section 17A.

What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?

For the Defence

• A Section 17A objection must show a link to a recommendation or decision in official duty.
• Late sanction arguments will usually be treated as curable irregularities.

For Investigating Agencies

• Bribe-demand cases do not need Section 17A approval.
• Still obtain Section 19 sanction promptly to avoid litigation over timing.

Key Takeaways

Frequently Asked Questions

Investigation into offences relating to recommendations or decisions taken by a public servant in discharging official functions, which requires prior approval.

The alleged demand for Rs 1.5 lakh was a pure criminal act, not an official decision or recommendation.

No. The Court treated it as an irregularity that does not vitiate the trial.

Conclusion

Read the full judgment on CourtKutchehry: View judgment →