S.17A PC Act | Prior Approval Must When No 'Demand' Made By Accused Public Servant But Money Is Accepted Or Thrust Upon Him: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has allowed the petitions filed by officials of the Commercial Tax Department and quashed proceedings initiated against them under the Prevention of Corruption Act by Karnataka Lokayukta, based on sting operations carried out by media houses.

However, it refused to obliterate the proceedings initiated against traffic police personnel who permitted heavy vehicles into areas where they were prohibited to ply during certain hours, on acceptance of money.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna distinguished the two situations and held that in the cases pertaining to officers of the Commercial Tax department- wherein it is shown in the sting operation video that money was forcefully loaded it into their hands- would come within the ambit of protection under Section 17A of Prevention of Corruption Act, requiring prior approval. Moreover, it did not meet the requirement as laid down under Section 7 of the Act, i.e., the demand and acceptance.

While in the case of traffic policemen where sting operation revealed acceptance of bribes from the drivers and owners of lorries for permitting the lorries into the City during the time when they are not to be permitted at the places where they are not supposed to be permitted, the court said,

“In these cases, there is deemed, demand and acceptance of bribes for permitting lorries carrying huge granite slabs in an area where they are not supposed to ply, and during prohibitory hours. This permission is given on the strength of acceptance of money from the owners or drivers of lorries. This is caught on camera. The sting operation has thus caught the officers accepting money. It is undoubtedly akin to a trap proceeding or even on a higher pedestal. Therefore, rigour or protection under Section 17A of the Act would not be applicable in cases of public servants accepting money for permitting violations of traffic.”

Different media houses had carried out sting operations on the petitioners between 10-06-2022 and 27-06-2022. Taking cognizance of the media reports the Karnataka Lokayukta had initiated proceedings against them under provisions of the Act.

The petitioners had questioned the registration of offences against them by the Karnataka Lokayukta on the basis of the sting operations. They primarily argued that the registration of crime is illegal without it being in compliance with Section 17A of the Act, as for registration of crime, prior approval would be required to conduct investigation except in cases of trap. Further, it wad said the offence cannot be construed to be a trap, as there is no demand and acceptance.

The bench firstly upheld the validity of sting operations stating, “Sting operations are healthy; but they should be healthy sting operations’, healthy I mean, they should be in accordance with law.”

Referring to Section 17A of the Act, the bench reiterated that the object of the Section was to protect public servants from malicious prosecution but if enquiry reveals malfeasance committed by the public servant with an element of dishonesty, he can be proceeded against with the approval of the Competent Authority.

Thus it observed, “In the considered view of this Court, Section 17A and its purport must be observed with complete strictness bearing in mind public interest and protection available to such officers against whom offences are alleged, failing which, sometimes result in malicious prosecution. Section 17A is clearly a filter that the prosecution must pass in order to discourage or avoid vexatious prosecution, though it cannot be considered as a protective shield for the guilty, but a safeguard for the innocent.”

Noting that Section 17A cannot be read in isolation and it should be read qua the offences that are alleged against these petitioners, punishable under Section 7, the bench held,

“If so done, what would unmistakably emerge is, in cases where the officers of the Commercial Tax Department have been the subject matter of issues in the lis, they would require prior approval for registration of crime as they are not the ones wherein the officers have demanded, accepted and caught accepting such bribe or arrested on such ingredients. The allegations are that they have accepted bribes at the point in time when the sting operation recording is made. Therefore, it is a case where there is no demand, but only acceptance. It cannot be equated with a trap where the public servant had already demanded and accepting at the time of recording in the sting operation.”

Further it said “The cases at hand are not cases of trap. Therefore, on the act of no approval being sought or granted by the Competent Authority prior to registration of the crime, the crimes registered in those cases are necessarily to be obliterated.”

On the other hand in the case of the traffic policemen the bench said, “What is alleged is letting of vehicles which carry granite blocks in the peak, and prohibitory hours into the city. This has resulted in clogging vehicular traffic in the city, a menace in the city to-day. Therefore, such cases where Traffic Police indulge in accepting bribes for movement of vehicles which are clearly prohibited is an unpardonable act.”

It added, “The rigour of Section 17A cannot be pressed into service for such acts, as it cannot become a cloak for protection of such illicit acts. The cases would clearly mean that they have demanded money, accepted bribes and executed the work immediately on acceptance of such a bribe. These are cases where the Government/prosecuting agencies will have to deal with an iron hand.”

Following which it held “If a public servant is entrapped for his ugly undertakings, it would amount to violation of right to privacy, as he has not demanded on his own volition, but he is alleged of accepting money which is caught on the camera during the sting operation. It is, therefore, the offence under Section 7(a), (b) and (c) is laid. These are cases where prior approval under Section 17A would be imperative. The other set of cases, as observed hereinabove, where there is due demand and acceptance, and immediate favour is done, such cases would not require approval under Section 17A of the Act, as its rigour is protected under the proviso.”

Traffic Policemen indulging in corruption causing traffic snarls be dealt with an iron hand

Before parting, the court also expressed concern over "mountainous proportions" of traffic congestion in Bangalore, one of the reasons for which it said is corruption at the hands of traffic sleuths. “The Government by way of its policy or the respective Departments would bring in prohibitory hours for heavy traffic vehicles to come into the city and if on acceptance of money these prohibitory hours are diluted for lorries or heavy traffic vehicles to come in, it would become an aid or an added circumstance leading to vehicular traffic clogging in the city,” it noted.

“Such instances which are found to be happening in broad daylight and which are brought to the notice of the State, by any quarter whatsoever should merit immediate address, and such persons who indulge in creating such traffic snarls or any other person indulging in such corruption should be dealt with an iron hand, as these can be considered as crimes affecting the general public and every citizen, having cascading effect on the economy of the State as well,” it added.

It therefore suggested the top brass to forthwith address such problems of deviation of any norm in traffic with the connivance of traffic police, and bring them to books in accordance with law without loss of time.

Click Here To Read/Download Order