Allahabad High Court
Bechan Yadav Pno No 890881990 vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. ... on 24 February, 2025
Author: Vivek Chaudhary
Bench: Vivek Chaudhary
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:11468-DB
Court No. - 10
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 1554 of 2025
Petitioner :- Bechan Yadav Pno No 890881990
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Pal Singh Yadav,Ashish Kumar Singh,Prathama Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary,J.
Hon'ble Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State/opposite parties and perused the material available on record.
2. This petition seeks issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the First Information Report dated 25.01.2025, bearing Zero F.I.R./Case Crime No. 001 of 2025, under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, registered at Police Station- Sohramau, District- Unnao, lodged by opposite party no.4 and to direct the opposite party no.2 to transfer the investigation of the case to the competent authority for proper, fair and partial investigation of the case.
3. The first submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and in fact no amount is recovered from him. The F.I.R. deals at length in the manner in which the trap team had acted. It is specifically note that when the trap team informed the petitioner that he has been trapped, he immediately threw the 'notes' which were allegedly recovered by the trap team. Thereafter when petitioner's hands were washed in a transparent glass of containing sodium carbonate solution, the solution turned pink, including the presence of 'phenolphthalein powder' that had been applied to the notes by trap team before they were handed over to the petitioner. Therefore, it cannot be said that notes were not recovered from the petitioner.
4. Next submission of counsel for the petitioner is that there is no evidence of demand being made by the petitioner for money and there is no violation of Section 105 of B.N.S.S. He further submits that from before lodging of the F.I.R., no prior approval is taken by the competent authority.
5. Learned A.G.A. strongly opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the name of the petitioner has been shown in the first information report and his role has been specifically stated in the said F.I.R.
6. We have gone through the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. So far as the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely trapped by the police team, we do not find any force in the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner, as he could not show any material that trap team was in any way biased or against the petitioner.
7. The main contention of the petitioner is the alleged contravention of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which reads as follows:
"17-A. 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 the affairs of a State, of that Government;
(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."
8. The proviso to Section 17A makes it explicitly clear that prior approval is not required in cases where a person is caught on the spot while accepting or attempting to accept an undue advantage. This provision ensures that the fight against corruption is not hindered by procedural barriers while simultaneously safeguarding honest public servants. The legislative intent behind Section 17A is to protect officials who act in good faith while discharging their official duties. However, this protection does not extend to acts that are inherently criminal or constitute an offence. Therefore, when a public servant is caught red-handed in a trap case, prior approval under Section 17A is not a prerequisite for investigation or prosecution.
9. In support of his case, various judgments have been supplied by counsel for the petitioner. In case of Himanshu Yadav vs. State of Rajasthan and others ; 2022 SCC OnLine Raj 1303, the trap setup by the police authorities was failed and hence the facts of the said case are different from the present case. Additionally, the counsel for Petitioner has also relied on Nara Chandrababu Naidu vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Another; 2024 SCC OnLine SC 47, State of Karnataka Vs T.N. Sudhakar Reddy, Criminal Appeal No. 5001 of 2024 [arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 13264 of 2024), Yashwant Sinha and others vs. CBI, (2020) 2 SCC 338, Naresh Kumar Mittal and others vs. CBI ; 2023 SCC OnLine Del 5373, Yogesh Nayyar vs. State of M.P. and another ; 2023 SCC OnLine MP 2049 and Baini Prasad Chansoriya vs. State of M.P. and others ; 2022 SCC OnLine MP 5991, however, none of them is with regard to a trap case. Thus, the Judgments are not applicable to the facts of the present case.
10. Having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case and from reading of the F.I.R., cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner.
11. In the result, writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
(Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi, J.) (Vivek Chaudhary, J.)
Order Date :- 24.2.2025
Praveen
