Prevention of Corruption Act | SC rules Section 17A not applicable to Illegal Gratification

In a significant ruling clarifying anti corruption jurisdiction, the Supreme Court upheld the authority of Rajasthan’s Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) to investigate and file cases against Central Government officials under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The decision resolves long-standing uncertainty over whether only the CBI can probe such offences and reinforces the state’s investigative powers while dismissing attempts to rely on procedural safeguards to block prosecution.

The dispute arose after two Central Government employees, facing allegations of demanding illegal gratification under Sections 7 and 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, challenged the Rajasthan High Court’s jurisdiction to allow ACB to register cases against them. The petitioners argued that, as central employees, only the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) could investigate and file charge-sheets, and any ACB action without prior CBI approval would be invalid. Counsel for the petitioners further sought protection under Section 17-A of the Act, which mandates prior approval for investigations involving official decisions, claiming it shielded them from state-level scrutiny.

The Apex Court rejected these claims outright, observing that Section 17A is limited to offences linked to recommendations or decisions taken in the discharge of official functions and cannot be invoked to protect acts of illegal gratification. The Court noted that the High Court had correctly recognized that “it is incorrect to say that it is only the CBI who could have instituted the prosecution,” confirming the ACB’s jurisdiction to proceed.

Consequently, the Special Leave Petitions were dismissed, and the Court made it clear that attempts to use Section 17A as a shield in corruption cases unrelated to official decision-making are entirely misconceived.

Case Title: Anil Daima Etc Vs. State Of Rajasthan & Ors.

Case No.: S.L.P.(Crl.) Nos.1010-1011/2026

Coram: Hon’ble Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Hon’ble Justice Satish Chandra Sharma

Advocate for the Petitioner: Sr. Adv. Ashok Gaur, AOR. Megha Karnwal, Adv. Sakshi Singh,

Advocate for the Respondent: AAG. Shivmangal Sharma, 

Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com