Gujarat High Court
Rajubhai Khimabhai Gojia vs State Of Gujarat on 26 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/914/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025
undefined
Reserved On : - 19/08/2025
Pronounced On : 26/09/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY
SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 914 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
RAJUBHAI KHIMABHAI GOJIA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DEVARSH P PANDYA(12986) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. KRUPAL P SAVJANI(14242) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
CAV JUDGMENT
914 of 2025
1. Rule. Learned APP waives service of Rule on behalf of State.
2. The present revision application has been preferred by the present applicant - original accused under Section 438 read with Section 442 of the Bharatiya Page 1 of 25 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 03:01:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/914/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (In short "BNSS") directing against the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Veraval in ACB case no.01 of 2024 rejecting the discharge application of the present applicant - original accused below Exhibit-7 dated 05.04.2025.
3. The short facts of the present revisino application is under:
4. Originally, one complaint was given by Vijaybhai @ Sanghabhai Pareshbhai Singhal dated 05.12.2018 before the Police Station, Junagadh and it was alleged in the complaint by the said complainant that on 28.11.2018, his younger brother Devrajbhai went to the Dhankundiya village by driving Dumper No.GJ-09-Z-3071 and thereafter, at about 05:30 in the evening, this Devrajbhai telephoned the present complainant and told him that the officers of the Mines and Minerals Department have stopped his Dumper as it is an overloaded with the sand, so, the complainant has inquired about who is the officer of Page 2 of 25 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 03:01:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/914/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined the Department. So, Devrajbhai told him that his name is Dhojiyabhai and other two or three persons are there. Therefore, complainant told to this Devrajbhai that "Okay, I will call Mr.Vijaybhai Barad", who is his partner in the business and thereafter, he has talked with Vijaybhai Barad regarding the officers of the Mines and Mineral Department have stopped their Dumper and thereafter, told him that this is the number of Mr.Dhojiya and you talk with him and thereafter, when talked with Mr.Dhojiya, then, he told him that talk with Mr.Sanjaybhai who is also officer in the Mines and Minerals Department and Sanjaybhai has told the complainant that as today, he has allowed his dumper to go but for that, he has to give Rs.20,000/- and subsequently, on 29.11.2018, again, Mr.Sanjaybhai has texted the message to the complainant on his mobile phone and in the text message, one mobile number of one - Bhikhabhai was mentioned and told him that this amount is to Page 3 of 25 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 03:01:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/914/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined be given to Mr.Bhikhabhai and again, Mr.Sanjaybhai was frequently telephoned the complainant and demanded Rs.20,000/- and subsequently, on 01.12.2018, the complainant assured the Sanjaybhai that he will give the amount on 05 th December and he was not willing to give this amount to Mr.Sanjaybhai and he has given this complaint before the ACB Police Station. Pursuant to this complaint, a trap was led by the ACB officers, two panchas were called and when they went to the hotel of Mr.Bhikhabhai, he was not present, so, the complainant has again telephoned the accused - Sanjaybhai and Sanjaybhai told him to telephone him after he reached at Mines and Minerals Office in the Collector office at Navi Inaj and immediately, Mr.Sanjaybhai telephoned complainant to give the amount to one - Mr.Sahdevbhai and thereafter, the complainant has talked with Mr.Sahdevbhai regarding that Mr.Sanjaybhai has told him to give him Rs.20,000/- but Mr.Sanjaybhai has cut his Page 4 of 25 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 03:01:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/914/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined telephone and thereafter, again Sanjaybhai has talked with the Mr.Vijaybhai Barad but as he was accompanied the complainant and the leading party and he told him that he is out of station and the complainant has told them to give the amount to the shop of Bajrang Pan and the complainant told him that whenever you came to Veraval and you are present in the office, he will give the amount and pursuant to this, the trap was postponed as it was not successful and the report has been submitted. Further, the conversation between the present applicant - accused and the other accused no.2 Mr.Sanjaybhai and other persons have already been recorded and it was sent for the FSL and subsequently, the report came and on 16.03.2022, Police Inspector, ACB Police Station, Junagadh - Mr. VR Patel has given one complaint against the present applicant as accused no.1 and Mr.Sanjaybhai for the offence punishable under Sections 7(a), 12 and 13(2) of the Prevention of the Page 5 of 25 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 03:01:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/914/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined Corruption Act, 1988 (Amended Act, 2018) and after obtaining the sanction from the competent authority, the chargesheet has been filed and it was given Special ACB Case No.01 of 2024 before the Sessions Court, Veraval and in the said special case no.01 of 2024, an application below Exhibit-7 was preferred under Section 250 of the BNSS for discharge and the same came to be rejected by the learned Sessions Court on 05.04.2025 and being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said order, the present revision application has been preferred.
5. Heard learned advocate Mr.Devarsh Pandya for the applicant and it is submitted by him that looking to the chargesheet papers, it is revealed that the alleged offence has been committed in the year 2018 and after the span of 4 years in the year 2022, an FIR came to be again given by the police officer under the PC Act and shown the present applicant as accused no.1 and another co-accused Mr.Sanjaybhai as accused no.2. Further, he was Page 6 of 25 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 03:01:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/914/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined submitted that the chargesheet came to be filed in the year 2024. Further, he submitted that during the investigation, the investigation officer has not been able to gather or produce any iota of evidence against the present applicant which remotely suggests satisfaction of the ingredients of the alleged offence qua the present applicant. Further, he would submit that as per the amendment, 2018, there is Section 17A of the PC Act came into force on 26.07.2018 and the said offence as alleged has to be committed on 28.11.2018, so, considering this, as per the Section 17A, categorically state and create and bar upon the police officer to conduct investigation, inquiry or enquiry in relation to the decision made by the public servant while discharge of official function in duties. In the present case, the police officer has not taken any prior approval from the competent authority and conducted the preliminary inquiry for 4 years and thereafter, complaint came to be given by the police officer - Page 7 of 25 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 03:01:23 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/914/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined Mr. V.R. Patel on 16.03.2022. So, the preliminary inquiry without prior approval from the competent authority and subsequently, lodging of an FIR, investigation, taking sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act or are illegal against the settled principle of law. Hence, considering this, the present revision application is required to be allowed and the present applicant is required to be discharged. Further, it is submitted that said aspect has been specifically raised in the discharge application but the learned Sessions Judge has decided not to deal with this defence of Section 17A of the PC Act. Further, learned advocate for the applicant submitted that as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Yashvat Sinha and others Vs. CBI reported in (2020) 2 SCC 338 categorically stated that Section 17A of the PC Act bar the investigation agency and police found embarking upon inquiry, enquiry and investigation in relation to any offence committed by the public servant while discharging of his duty. Page 8 of 25 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 03:01:23 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/914/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined Further, learned advocate for the applicant relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Himanshu Yadav Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2022 SCC Online Rajasthan 1303 stated that in the said judgment, the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court had observed that the allegation of demanding illegal gratification relates to discharge of his official duties of the present applicant and no prior approval of the competent authority has been obtained. Hence, the proceedings thereafter, further investigation lodging the FIR against the petitioner without approval of the competent authority is void ab initio as there is specific bar under Section 17A of the PC Act. Further, learned advocate also relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Ramanbhai Nathubhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat in Criminal Misc. Application No.27814 of 2016 and submitted that as per the judgment, it is abundantly clear that no police officer shall conduct any inquiry, enquiry Page 9 of 25 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 03:01:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/914/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined or investigation into any offence alleged to have been committed by the public servant under the PC Act where, the alleged offence is relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken by such public servant in discharge of his official functions or duties. Further, it is submitted that he also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Shrimati Shrirupa Vs. State of Karnataka and also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Kailashchandra Aggrawal and others Vs. State of Rajasthan in Criminal Misc. Application No.159 of 2018 and further, it is submitted by him that preliminary inquiry report bearing outward no.81 of 2022 dated 10.02.2022 issued by the investigating officer simply reiterates and re appreciates the exact same facts, material and documents that were available with him while issuing unsuccessful trap report and preliminary inquiry suffering from non- compliance of Section 17A of the PC Act. Further, he Page 10 of 25 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 03:01:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/914/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined submitted that even the demand ease sine-qua-non to constitute the offence under the PC Act but in the present case, from the charge sheet, it appears that the present applicant - accused has not made any demand from any of the accused even from the transcript also, which becomes crystal clear that the present applicant has neither demanded any money. On the contrary, he only answered in "Hmmmmm, Okay" except that, there is no other conversation on 28.11.2018 and after 28.11.2018, on 29.11.2018, the present applicant has no occasion to have conversation with the complainant or any other person. Hence, considering this, the order passed by the learned Trial Court rejecting the application is expressly illegal and against the settled principle of law, requires to be set aside.
6. On the other hand, learned APP Mr. H K Patel has vehemently opposed the said revision application and submitted that from the charge sheet paper, the involvement of the present applicant - accused has Page 11 of 25 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 03:01:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/914/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined been prima facie established. Further, it is submitted that from the conversation took place between the complainants partner with the present applicant is concerned, it is clear established that the present applicant has abated the commission of the crime. Further, it is submitted that illegal taking or agreed to take illegal gratification cannot be termed as recommendation made or the decision taken by the public servant in discharge of his function or duties. So, agreed to accept the bribe amount or demanding the bribe amount or an attempt to obtain bribe amount cannot be termed as an official function or duties of the public servant. So, when the present applicant - accused has not made any recommendation or the decision has been taken by him, hence, the argument of the learned advocate for the applicant that Section 17A came into play that before inquiry, investigation or enquiry, the prior approval of the competent officer is required. Hence, considering this, further, he Page 12 of 25 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 03:01:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/914/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined submitted that the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court is just and proper and does not require any interference and there is no merits in the present revision application and it is required to be rejected.
7. Considering the arguments advanced by the learned advocate for the applicant and considering the paperbook submitted by the learned advocate for the applicant and also perusing the impugned order of the learned Trial Court, at this juncture, it would be apt to refer to the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander and another, reported in (2012)9 SCC 460. Relevant observations made in paras 8 and 9 of the said judgment read as under:-
"8. ..... Section 397 of the Code vests the court with the power to call for and examine the records of an inferior court for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularity of any proceedings or order made in a case. The object of this provision is to set right a patent defect or an Page 13 of 25 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 03:01:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/914/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be a wellfounded error and it may not be appropriate for the court to scrutinize the orders, which upon the face of it bears a token of careful consideration and appear to be in accordance with law. If one looks into the various judgments of this Court, it emerges that the revisional jurisdiction can be invoked where the decisions under challenge are grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with the provisions of law, the finding recorded is based on no evidence, material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely. These are not exhaustive classes, but are merely indicative. Each case would have to be determined on its own merits.
9. Another well-accepted norm is that the revisional jurisdiction of the higher court is a verylimited one and cannot be exercised in a routine manner. One of the inbuilt restrictions is that it should not be against an interim or interlocutory order. The Court has to keep in mind that the exercise of revisional jurisdiction itself should not lead to injustice ex facie.
Where the Court is dealing with Page 14 of 25 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 03:01:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/914/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined the question as to whether the charge has been framed properly and in accordance with law in a given case, it may be reluctant to interfere in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction unless the case substantially falls within the categories aforestated. Even framing of charge is a much advanced stage in the proceedings under the Cr.P.C....."
8. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned advocates for respective parties and perused the impugned judgment passed by the learned Trial Court. So far as the question in the present case in hand is concerned, Section 17A of the PC Act has been come into play and so, as per Section 17A of the PC Act, it is mandatory to take previous approval from the competent authority before making inquiry or investigating the offence.
9. The short facts of the present case is already been narrated above. So far as the present case is concerned, the chargesheet has been filed against the present applicant and other co-accused persons Page 15 of 25 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 03:01:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/914/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined under Section 7(a), 12 and 13(2) of the PC Act. The present applicant is concerned, he has been charged along with co-accused persons, more particularly, for the offence of the abatement of the commission of the crime. In this regard, it is required to consider and the main grievance put forward by the learned advocate that while deciding the application under Section 250 of the BNSS for discharge. The learned Sessions Judge has not given his findings whether Section 17A of the PC Act would apply or not?
10. The present case in hand is concerned, it is not in dispute that initially, one complaint came to be given before the ACB Police by one - Mr.Vijaybhai @ Sanghabhai Pareshbhai Singhal on 05.12.2018 and pursuant to the given this complaint, a trap was laid but the said trap was not become successful as the trap was laid on 06.12.2018 and becomes unsuccessful and the report has been submitted and pursuant to this report submitted by the concerned police officer by communication dated 29.12.2018 Page 16 of 25 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 03:01:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/914/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined from the Director of Anti Corruption Bureau, Ahmedabad vide letter dated 29.12.2018 has told the Gir Somnath ACB Police to make the preliminary inquiry and to consider this inquiry. Again, the FIR came to be given by one - Mr. V. R. Patel in-charge Police Officer, ACB Police Station, Junagadh on 16.03.2022 and subsequently, the chargesheet has been filed. Further, it is also not in dispute that so far as from the police papers, there is no allegation against the present applicant pertained to demand of the dowry.
11. In this regard, I have also considered the authorities on which the learned advocate for the applicant relied upon, more particularly, the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Yashwant Sinha Vs. Central Bureau Investigation reported in (2020) 2 SCC 338 and more particularly, paragraph nos.116, 117 and 118 has been held as under:
"116. In the year 2018, the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 Page 17 of 25 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 03:01:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/914/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined (hereinafter referred to as '2018 Act' for short) was brought into force on 26.07.2018. Thereunder, Section 17A, a new Section was inserted, which reads as follows:
"17A. Enquiry or inquiry or investigation of offences relatable to recommendations made or decision taken by public servant in discharge of official functions or duties:- (1) No police officer shall conduct any enquiry or inquiry or investigation into any offence alleged to have been committed by a public servant under this Act, where the alleged offence is relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken by such public servant in discharge of his official functions or duties, without the previous approval--
(a) in the case of a person who is or was employed, at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed, in connection with the affairs of the Union, of that Government;
(b) in the case of a person who is or was employed, at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed, in connection with Page 18 of 25 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 03:01:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/914/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined the affairs of a State, of that Government;
12. (c) in the case of any other person, of the authority competent to remove him from his office, at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed:
Provided that no such approval shall be necessary for cases involving arrest of a person on the spot on the charge of accepting or attempting to accept any undue advantage for himself or for any other person:
Provided further that the concerned authority shall convey its decision under this section within a period of three months, which may, for reasons to be recorded in writing by such authority, be extended by a further period of one month."
117. In terms of Section 17A, no Police Officer is permitted to conduct any enquiry or inquiry or conduct investigation into any offence done by a public servant where the offence alleged is relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken by the public servant in discharge of his public functions without previous approval, inter alia, of the authority competent to remove Page 19 of 25 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 03:01:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/914/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined the public servant from his Office at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed. In respect of the public servant, who is involved in this case, it is clause (c), which is applicable. Unless, therefore, there is previous approval, there could be neither inquiry or enquiry or investigation. It is in this context apposite to notice that the complaint, which has been filed by the petitioners in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 298 of 2018, moved before the first respondent-CBI, is done after Section 17A was inserted. The complaint is dated 04.10.2018.
Paragraph 5 sets out the relief which is sought in the complaint which is to register an FIR under various provisions. Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the complaint are relevant in the context of Section 17A, which reads as follows:
"6. We are also aware that recently, Section 17(A) of the act has been brought in by way of an amendment to introduce the requirement of prior permission of the government for investigation or inquiry under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
7. We are also aware that this will place you in the peculiar Page 20 of 25 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 03:01:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/914/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined situation, of having to ask the accused himself, for permission to investigate a case against him. We realise that your hands are tied in this matter, but we request you to at least take the first step, of seeking permission of the government under Section 17(A) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for investigating this offence and under which, "the concerned authority shall convey its decision under this section within a period of three months, which may, for reasons to be recorded in writing by such authority, be extended by a further period of one month"."
118. Therefore, petitioners have filed the complaint fully knowing that Section 17A constituted a bar to any inquiry or enquiry or investigation unless there was previous approval. In fact, a request is made to at least take the first step of seeking permission under Section 17A of the 2018 Act. Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 298 of 2018 was filed on 24.10.2018 and the complaint is based on non-
registration of the FIR. There is no challenge to Section 17A. Under the law, as it stood, both on the date of filing the petition and even as of today, Section 17A continues to be on the Statute Book and it constitutes a Page 21 of 25 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 03:01:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/914/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined bar to any inquiry or enquiry or investigation. The petitioners themselves, in the complaint, request to seek approval in terms of Section 17A but when it comes to the relief sought in the Writ Petition, there was no relief claimed in this behalf."
13. So, as per the Section 17A is constitute bar to hold an inquiry or enquiry or investigation unless seeking prior permission under Section 17A of the PC Act from the competent officer and more particularly, for the decision taken by the public servant if there is an allegation is relatable to any recommendation made or the decision taken by the public servant in discharge of the public functions. In that circumstances, the previous approval is required.
14. Further, so from this, it is clear that Section 17A of the PC Act came into play, when it was alleged that the offence is related to in the decision taken by the public servant in discharge of his official function. So far as the present case in hand is concerned, as per the case of the prosecution, the present applicant initially, has intercepted the dumper by Page 22 of 25 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 03:01:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/914/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined the present complainant and subsequently, he told the complainant to talk with the accused no.2 and even from the conversation, it emerges that the complainant has told the present applicant that they are going to give Rs.20,000/- to the Bajrang Pan. At that time, the present applicant has stated "Okay, Okay". So, there is clear-cut allegation of the abatement of the commission of the offence. Therefore, there is no nexus by any distance between the official function of the applicant and the Act alleged against them. So far as the present applicant has also heavily relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Shrimati Shrirupa (Supra) is concerned, it pertains to the decision taken by the accused regarding the allotment of the plots, so, it was a recommendation or the decision has been taken by the accused and for that, Section 17A has come into play and the prior approval is required before making any inquiry, enquiry or investigation. As discussed Page 23 of 25 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 03:01:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/914/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined above, the present case is concerned, the act in the present applicant is concerned, it is not relatable to his official duty or it relates to any decision or recommendation made by the present applicant, hence, there is no question of taking prior approval under Section 17A of the PC Act.
15. So far the applicant is concerned, there is clear-cut material has been produced along with the chargesheet that the present applicant has abated the commission of the offence in connivance with the accused no.2 and further, it is required to be considered at this stage, while framing the charge, Court is not required to be considered whether there is a material produced with the chargesheet will bring home the conviction or whether it resulted into acquittal. Further, at this stage, the Court is not required to hold the mini trial. Hence, further, I have also perused the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court is just and proper. I do not find any illegality has been committed by the learned Page 24 of 25 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 03:01:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/914/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined Trial Court or the order seems not to have been perversed. Hence, I do not find any merits in the present revision application.
16. The present Revision Application No. 914 of 2025 is hereby dismissed. The present revision application is disposed off accordingly. Rule is discharged.
(L. S. PIRZADA, J) JCP Page 25 of 25 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 03:01:23 IST 2025