PRASHANTHA NAYAKA G S/O GURUVAIAH vs STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
CRL.P No. 101083 of 2026
C/W CRL.P No. 101192 of 2025
WP No. 106297 of 2026
AND 1 OTHER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
R
TH
DATED THIS THE 17 DAY OF OCTOBER , 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101083 OF 2026
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101192 OF 2025
WRIT PETITION NO. 106297 OF 2026 (GM-RES)
WRIT PETITION NO. 107148 OF 2026 (GM-RES)
IN CRL.P No. 101083/2026
BETWEEN:
VEERESH SAVADI
S/O SHARANAPPA SAVADI
AGE 38 YEARS
OCC ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE
ENGINEER MUNCIPAL CORPORATION BALLARY,
NOW AT R/O SADHANKERI DHARWAD.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI SHARANABASAVARAJ C, ADVOCATE)
Digitally
signed by
PRAMILA G V
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA P S BALLARY
REP.BY SPECIAL PP LOKAYUKTA.
2.
VASANT KUMAR
AGE 49 YEARS
OCC DY S P
REP.BY SPECIAL PP,
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA
BALLARY - 583 101.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SRINIVAS B NAIK, ADVOCATE)
- 2 -
CRL.P No. 101083 of 2026
C/W CRL.P No. 101192 of 2025
WP No. 106297 of 2026
AND 1 OTHER
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 528 OF BNSS
(U/S 482 OF CR.P.C.) SEEKING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT
AND FIR IN KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, BALLARY CRIME NO.
09/2024 FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S
13(1), (c) (D) R/W .SEC 13(2) OF PC ACT AND SEC. 120B, 465,
468, 471, R/W 420 IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRL. DIST.
AND SESSIONS JUDGE (SPL), BALLARY, SO FAR AS
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.9 IS CONCERNED.
IN CRL.P NO. 101192/2025
BETWEEN:
PRASHANTHA NAYAKA G,
S/O GURUVAIAH,
AGE 42 YEARS, OCC. FINANCE OFFICER
VISVESVARAYYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERISTY
BELAGAVI 590018
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI R M JAVED,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA P.S.,
BALLARY
REP. BY SPL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENCH AT DHARWAD 580001.
2. VASANT KUMAR,
AGE 49 YEARS, OCC. DY. SP,
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA,
BALLARY 583101,
REP.BY SPL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD-580001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SRINIVAS B NAIK,ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF
- 3 -
CRL.P No. 101083 of 2026
C/W CRL.P No. 101192 of 2025
WP No. 106297 of 2026
AND 1 OTHER
CR.P.C. (528 OF BNSS), PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS
AND QUASH THE COMPLAINT AND FIR KARNATAKA
LOKAYUKTA, BALLARY CRIME NO.09/2024 FOR THE
ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 13(1), (c) (D), R/W
SECTION 13(2) OF PC ACT, AND SECTION 120B, 465, 468,
471 R/W 420 OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF
PRL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, (SPL), BALLARY, SO
FAR AS PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3 IS CONCERNED.
IN WP NO. 106297/2026
BETWEEN:
1.
SRI MANJUNATH KARABASAPPA NALAVADI,
S/O. LATE KARABASAPPA NALAVADI,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
RETIRED AS MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER,
RESIDING AT 458, SAI NIVAS, S S NIJALINGAPPA
LAYOUT, 5TH MAIN,
13TH CROSS, DAVANAGERE-577004.
2. SRI. E. THIMMAPPA,
S/O. LATE E. RAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
WORKING AS SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER,
VIJAYAPURA CITY CORPORATION, JALA NAGARA,
BAGALKOT ROAD, VIJAYAPURA-586109
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT DOOR NO. 238,
BHASKAR SHANTI NILAYA, JALANAGARA,
VIJAYAPURA-586109.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI M S BHAGWAT, SR. ADV. FOR
SRI. SATISH K.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
THE STATE BY KARNATAKA
LOKAYUKTHA POLICE,
REPRESENTED BY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA, BALLARY,
- 4 -
CRL.P No. 101083 of 2026
C/W CRL.P No. 101192 of 2025
WP No. 106297 of 2026
AND 1 OTHER
DIST. BALLARY-583101.
2. SRI. VASANTHKUMAR,
FATHERS NAME NOT KNOW TO THE PETITIONER,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, WORKING AS DEPUTY
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA,
BALLARY, DIST. BALLARY-583101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SRINIVAS B NAIK, ADVOCATE)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 528
OF BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023
PRAYING TO,THEREFORE, THE PETITIONERS MOST
HUMBLY PRAY THAT THIS HON LE COURT MAY BE PLEASED
TO,A) CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE RESPONDENT NO. 2
IN RESPECT OF THE IMPUGNED COMPLAINT DATED
23/09/2024 (ANNEXURE-M) AND THE IMPUGNED FIRST
INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO. 09/2024 DATED
03/10/2024 (ANNEXURE-P).
IN WP NO. 107148/2026
BETWEEN:
ADARSH,
S/O SOORYANARAYANA M,
AGE. 37 YEARS,
OCC. JUNIOR ENGINEER,
R/O. MARUTHI NAGAR,
WARD NO.1, OPP. REMAND HOME,
BALLARY 583101
...PETITIONER
(BY S S YADRAMI, SR.ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. GIRISH V BHAT.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- 5 -
CRL.P No. 101083 of 2026
C/W CRL.P No. 101192 of 2025
WP No. 106297 of 2026
AND 1 OTHER
THROUGH KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA BALLARY,
BY ITS SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
REP. BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DAHRWAD - 580001.
2. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA BALLARY,
REP. BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD - 580001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SRINIVAS B NAIK,ADVOCATE)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FILED PRAYING TO,I. ISSUE
A WRIT OR A DIRECTION OR AN APPROPRIATE ORDER IN
THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED
FIR VIDE ANNEXURE-A REGISTERED BY 2ND RESPONDENT
IN THEIR P.S. CRIME NO. 9/2024 ON 03.10.2024 ON THE
BASIS OF THE IMPUGNED COMPLAINT IN BEARING NO.
LOK / D.S P/ BALLARY/VARADI/2024/263 DATED. 23-09-
2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-B LODGED BY THE RESPONDENT
NO. 2 DATED 23.09.2024 FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES
UNDER SEC. 13 (1) (C) (D) R/W. SEC. 13 (2) OF
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 AND SEC. 120B,
465, 468, 471 AND 420 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE (IPC) AND
ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO IT AS ILLEGAL,
IN SO FAR THEY RELATE TO THE PETITIONER.
THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
TH
FOR ORDERS ON 17 SEPTEMBER, 2026 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE
FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
- 6 -
CRL.P No. 101083 of 2026
C/W CRL.P No. 101192 of 2025
WP No. 106297 of 2026
AND 1 OTHER
CAV ORDER
The following two questions arise for consideration in this
batch of petitions.
(i) Whether Section 17A of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988, (introduced with effect from
26.07.2018) is applicable, if the decisions or
recommendations of a public servant under inquiry,
enquiry or investigation were made before the
commencement of Section 17A, and the inquiry or
enquiry or investigation commences after
26.07.2018.
To put it simply, whether Section 17A of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, is prospective or
retroactive in operation?
(ii) Whether the petitioners have made out
a case to quash FIR on the ground that FIR is
registered 8 years after the decision or
recommendation made by the petitioners?
- 7 -
CRL.P No. 101083 of 2026
C/W CRL.P No. 101192 of 2025
WP No. 106297 of 2026
AND 1 OTHER
In addition, the larger question, "should a law or an
amended law be silent on its prospective, retroactive or
retrospective application, on the facts antecedent to the law,
pending investigation or trial, or should it have an explicit
answer on its application to such questions in the law itself,
needs the attention of all the stakeholders?
2. The petitions are filed to quash the FIR registered
by Karnataka Lokayuktha, Ballary in Crime No.9/2024 for
alleged offences under Sections 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) read
with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ('PC
Act') and Sections 120B, 465, 468, 471 read with Section 420
of Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC').
3. Criminal Petition No.101083/2026 is filed by
accused No.9, Criminal petition No.101192/2025 is filed by
accused No.3, W.P. No. 106297/2026 is filed by accused No.2
and 5 and W.P. No. 107148/2026 is filed by accused No.8.
4. The complaint is filed by the second respondent,
Deputy Superintendent of Police, Lokayuktha on 23.09.2024
- 8 -
CRL.P No. 101083 of 2026
C/W CRL.P No. 101192 of 2025
WP No. 106297 of 2026
AND 1 OTHER
alleging misappropriation of funds in Ballary Municipal
Corporation, while carrying out certain construction works. It is
alleged that there is collusion between officers of the Ballary
Municipal Corporation and the contractors.
5. From the contents of the complaint it is noticed that
the complaint is filed against 8 persons. In addition, it is also
alleged that other officers of the Ballary Municipal Corporation,
not named in the complaint are also involved in the offence.
6. The complaint refers to 4 different indents and 17
different projects or work orders. The total amount of
misappropriation referred to in respect of package No.1 is
Rs.36,85,077/-, package No.2 is Rs.41,09,000/-, package No.3
is Rs.32,42,000/- and package No.4 is Rs.45,26,000/-. The
Rs.
total amount of misappropriation is said to be 1,55,62,077/-.
7. The complaint would also disclose that the
information is gathered in a discreet enquiry based on the
source report.
8. The learned Senior Counsel and the learned counsel
appearing for the respective petitioners would submit that the
- 9 -
CRL.P No. 101083 of 2026
C/W CRL.P No. 101192 of 2025
WP No. 106297 of 2026
AND 1 OTHER
complaint and the FIR could not have been registered and
same was done without application of mind.
9. It is urged that the inquiry, enquiry or investigation
on the decisions allegedly taken by the accused cannot be held
without prior approval under Section 17A of the PC Act.
10. It is the further submission that the 4 indents
referred to in the complaint relate to the works carried out
between 2012 and 2017 and FIR registered in 2024, as such,
there is no justification in lodging the complaint and registering
the FIR so belatedly.
11. It is also urged that all the payments referred to in
the aforementioned work orders were made through electronic
mode, and till the present complaint is filed, there was no
complaint or audit objection.
12. It is the further submission that petitioner in
Criminal Petition No. 101083/2026 was working as an Engineer
and his was only field work and he was not concerned with the
bill payment, scrutiny of the papers. There is no reason to
register the FIR against the said petitioner.
- 10 -
CRL.P No. 101083 of 2026
C/W CRL.P No. 101192 of 2025
WP No. 106297 of 2026
AND 1 OTHER
13. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit
that the complaint is filed based on a source report, and also a
preliminary enquiry.
14. It is urged that there are serious allegations relating
to misappropriation of funds. Even before the project was
handed over to the Ballary Municipal Corporation, the tenders
have been invited by the Municipal Corporation and work orders
were issued to the contractor.
15. In respect of Indent No.45364 (package number 3),
it is urged that the water purification unit was under the control
of Karnataka Water Supply and Sewage Board. The said unit
was not entrusted to the Municipal Corporation. However the
said work order was issued by the officers of Ballary Municipal
Corporation and without purchasing the necessary materials
the amount was released in favour of the contractor.
16. In respect of the indent No.45366, it is alleged that
without there being any purchase, the payment was made.
17. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit
that the issue raised with reference to Section 17A of the PC
Act, is covered in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court in
- 11 -
CRL.P No. 101083 of 2026
C/W CRL.P No. 101192 of 2025
WP No. 106297 of 2026
AND 1 OTHER
1
State of Rajasthan vs. Tejmal Choudhary . Since the
decisions and recommendations under investigation are made
before the amendment introducing Section 17A of the PC Act,
said Section 17A procedure does not apply.
18. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner in W.P No.
107148/2026 Sri Yadrami would submit that the Apex Court in
Nara Chandrababu Naidu, vs State of Andhra Pradesh
2
and another has delivered a split verdict on the application
of Section 17A, and the matter is referred to the larger bench
for consideration. Thus urged that the hearing be deferred till
the issue is resolved by the larger bench of the Apex Court.
19. In the alternative, Sri Yadrami would submit that
ratio in Tejmal choudhary supra, does not apply to the
present case as in the said judgment, the FIR was registered
before introduction of Section 17A in the PC Act.
20. The Court has considered the contentions raised
and perused the records.
1
2021 SCC OnLine SC 3477
2
2024 SCC OnLine SC 47
- 12 -
CRL.P No. 101083 of 2026
C/W CRL.P No. 101192 of 2025
WP No. 106297 of 2026
AND 1 OTHER
21. Before answering the two questions raised at the
beginning of this order, the Court has to answer whether the
judgment in Tejmal Choudhary supra, is applicable to these
petitions and whether the Court has to defer the hearing awaiting the
decision of the larger bench .
22. In Tejmal Choudhary supra , the question that
arose before the Apex Court was
in relation to an FIR
registered on 01.01.2018 under the PC Act. The paragraph
No.6 of the said judgment reads as under.
“6. In this case, the FIR was filed on 01.01.2018 before the
said provision came into force. The main question involved in
these appeals is whether Section 17A of the PC Act would apply
to an investigation which had commenced before Section 17A
was enacted/enforced.”
23. Referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in the
State of Telangana vs Managipet @ Mangipet Sarveshwar
3
Reddy the Apex Court has held that Section 17A of the
amended provisions of the PC Act, will not apply to the FIR
3
(2019) 19 SCC 87
- 13 -
CRL.P No. 101083 of 2026
C/W CRL.P No. 101192 of 2025
WP No. 106297 of 2026
AND 1 OTHER
registered before the commencement of Section 17A of the PC
Act.
24. The issue in the case on hand is not covered by the
judgment of the Apex Court in Tejmal Choudhary supra . The
striking distinguishing factor is in Tejmal Choudhary supra ,
the alleged recommendations or decisions were before the
introduction of Section 17A which came into force on
26.07.2018, and the FIR was registered on 01.01.2018 i.e.,
before the amendment. In the case on hand, the FIR is
registered on 03.10.2024
25. In Nara Chandrababu Naidu, supra , the decisions
and recommendations were allegedly made between 2015 and
2019, i.e., both before as well as after the commencement of
Section 17A of the PC Act. The FIR was registered after
introduction of Section 17A. In the said case there is a split
verdict by the Apex Court.
26. One view is that under Section 17A of PC Act, prior
approval is to be obtained by the investigating officer, even in
respect of the recommendations made or decisions taken by
the public servant before the commencement of Section 17A, if
- 14 -
CRL.P No. 101083 of 2026
C/W CRL.P No. 101192 of 2025
WP No. 106297 of 2026
AND 1 OTHER
the complaint is filed after the introduction of Section 17A of PC
Act.
27. The other view of the Hon’ble Apex Court
(dissenting verdict) is that Section17A procedure does not
apply if the inquiry/enquiry/investigation is in respect of the
recommendations made or decisions taken before the
commencement of Section17A of the PC Act, if the complaint is
filed after the 2018 amendment to PC Act.
28. In Nara Chandrababu Naidu supra, in view of the
split verdict the matter has been referred to larger bench and is
pending consideration. Split verdict of a bench of two judges is
not a binding precedent.
29. At this juncture it is apposite to refer to the
judgment of the Apex Court in Union Territory of Ladakh
and Others vs Jammu and Kashmir National Conference
4
and Another . The relevant paragraphs read as under:
“35. We are seeing before us judgments and orders by
High Courts not deciding cases on the ground that the
leading judgment of this Court on this subject is either
4
(2024) 18 SCC 643
- 15 -
CRL.P No. 101083 of 2026
C/W CRL.P No. 101192 of 2025
WP No. 106297 of 2026
AND 1 OTHER
referred to a larger Bench or a review petition relating
thereto is pending. We have also come across examples of
High Courts refusing deference to judgments of this Court
on the score that a later Coordinate Bench has doubted its
correctness. In this regard, we lay down the position in
law. We make it absolutely clear that the High Courts will
proceed to decide matters on the basis of the law as it
stands. It is not open, unless specifically directed by this
Court, to await an outcome of a reference or a review
petition, as the case may be. It is also not open to a High
Court to refuse to follow a judgment by stating that it has
been doubted by a later Coordinate Bench. In any case,
when faced with conflicting judgments by Benches of
equal strength of this Court, it is the earlier one which is
to be followed by the High Courts, as held by a 5-Judge
Bench in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay
Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680. The High Courts, of course, will
do so with careful regard to the facts and circumstances
of the case before it.”
(Emphasis supplied)
30. As noted above, as the ratio in Tejmal Choudhary
supra does not apply to the facts of these petitions, the Court
has to decide the case and there is no need to defer the
proceeding awaiting the final verdict from the larger bench.
31. The Court has also noticed that the question on
constitutional validity of Section 17A of the PC Act is also
- 16 -
CRL.P No. 101083 of 2026
C/W CRL.P No. 101192 of 2025
WP No. 106297 of 2026
AND 1 OTHER
pending before the larger bench of the Apex Court as there is
split verdict on the constitutional validity of Section 17A of the
PC Act in Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of
5
India . Since there is a split verdict by the Hon’ble Apex Court
in Centre for Public Interest Litigation, supra and the
matter is still pending consideration by the larger bench, said
Section 17A is still in operation.
32. In these petitions the Court is not called upon to
decide on the constitutional validity of Section 17A of the PC
Act. Thus, the pendency of the matter before the larger bench
on the question of constitutional validity of Section 17A also
does not come in the way of Court deciding the implication of
Section 17A on the investigation into the complaint filed against
the petitioners. However, the outcome of the judgment by the
larger bench on constitutional validity of Section 17A of PC Act
and as well as on application of Section17A of the PC Act may
have a bearing on the procedure adopted to investigate the
complaint which is lodged against the petitioners.
33. Analysis on question (i)
5
2026 INSC 55
- 17 -
CRL.P No. 101083 of 2026
C/W CRL.P No. 101192 of 2025
WP No. 106297 of 2026
AND 1 OTHER
(i) Whether Section 17A of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988, (introduced with effect from
26.07.2018) is applicable, if the decisions or
recommendations of a public servant under inquiry, enquiry
or investigation were made before the commencement of
Section 17A, and inquiry, enquiry or investigation
commence after 26.07.2018 .
34. Section 17A of the PC Act reads as under.
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.— 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;
- 18 -
CRL.P No. 101083 of 2026
C/W CRL.P No. 101192 of 2025
WP No. 106297 of 2026
AND 1 OTHER
(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
35. From the plain reading of the provision, it is evident
that;
a) Section 17A prohibits the investigating officer from
conducting any inquiry, enquiry or investigation against a
public servant,
b) in relation to a recommendation made or decision taken
by such public servant in discharge of his official functions
or duties, without previous approval of appropriate
government or competent authority specified in clauses
(a) to (c) of the PC Act.
- 19 -
CRL.P No. 101083 of 2026
C/W CRL.P No. 101192 of 2025
WP No. 106297 of 2026
AND 1 OTHER
c) As a corollary, to carry out the inquiry, enquiry or
investigation into any matters covered under Section 17A
of the PC Act, the investigating officer has to obtain prior
approval as envisaged under clauses (a) to (c) of the PC
Act.
36. In addition, it is also evident that Section 17A does
not in specific terms declare that the provision is prospective,
retrospective or retroactive. In other words, the provision does
not specifically provide as to whether the provision applies in
respect of recommendations or decisions made prior to
introduction of Section 17A. The provision is silent in this
regard.
37. Thus, to answer the question raised above, the
Court has to interpret the provision. To answer the question
whether a law is prospective or retroactive or retrospective
(when the law is silent on the said issue), as a first step the
Court has to consider whether the law is substantive law or
adjective law. The reason is, substantive law, unless specifically
provides for retrospective, or retroactive operation, or any
other kind of operation, carries a rebuttable presumption that it
- 20 -
CRL.P No. 101083 of 2026
C/W CRL.P No. 101192 of 2025
WP No. 106297 of 2026
AND 1 OTHER
is generally prospective. On the other hand, if not expressly
otherwise provided, the adjective law is generally retroactive
and that presumption is rebuttable.
38. The aforesaid said general rule is not an absolute
thumb rule, and it may be otherwise depending upon object
and purpose of the law and also consequence of its prospective,
or retrospective, or retroactive application of law.
39. Now the question is whether Section 17A of PC Act
is substantive law or adjective law.
40. As noticed above, the said provision prescribes prior
approval before holding an inquiry, enquiry or investigation into
any matters covered under Section 17A of the PC Act. It does
not impose a new liability on any public servant who is accused
of a crime. The additional obligation imposed on the
investigating officer before conducting inquiry, enquiry or
investigation into any of the matters referred to in Section 17A
of the PC Act is to obtain previous approval.
41. It is indeed true that the inquiry, enquiry or
investigation into any of the matters under Section 17A of the
PC Act is barred without approval, and such procedural
- 21 -
CRL.P No. 101083 of 2026
C/W CRL.P No. 101192 of 2025
WP No. 106297 of 2026
AND 1 OTHER
violation may confer a right in favour of accused to question
the inquiry, enquiry or investigation into matters covered under
Section 17A of the PC Act. However, such a right to question
the procedural violation by itself will not make the provision a
substantive law as the provision predominantly remains
procedural, governing the procedure relating to inquiry, enquiry
and investigation.
42. As already noticed Section 17A of the PC Act, does
not create a new liability on the accused, and does not dilute
the offences if any committed before the introduction of Section
17A of the PC Act. However it provides a procedural safeguard
to protect the honest officials from vexatious and malicious
criminal prosecution. All that the provision does is to impose an
additional obligation on the investigating officer. Thus, Section
17A of the PC Act is more procedural in its character rather
than that of substantive law.
43. Once the Court comes to the conclusion that
Section 17A of the PC Act has more attributes of adjective law,
one may have to start with a rebuttable presumption that the
provision is either retroactive or retrospective in application
- 22 -
CRL.P No. 101083 of 2026
C/W CRL.P No. 101192 of 2025
WP No. 106297 of 2026
AND 1 OTHER
44. The Apex Court in Tejmal Choudhary supra seems
to have held that the amendment of Section 17A does not have
a retrospective operation. Thus, the said provision is not
retrospective in operation. The Court cannot take a view that
Section 17A has retrospective operation. Such an interpretation
may set at naught the concluded inquiry, enquiry or
investigation which is never intended by the legislature.
45. However as already noticed, unlike in Tejmal
Choudhary supra , (where both the acts under scrutiny and FIR
were before amendment), in the case on hand the FIR is after
the amendment, whereas the acts alleged are before the
amendment.
46. After coming to the conclusion that the law is
procedural, as the next step, the Court should interpret the law
applying the plain grammatical meaning of the provision itself.
Applying the said test, the interpretation of Section 17A leads
to the following conclusions.
(a) Section 17A restrains the investigating officer from
conducting inquiry, enquiry or investigation relating to
- 23 -
CRL.P No. 101083 of 2026
C/W CRL.P No. 101192 of 2025
WP No. 106297 of 2026
AND 1 OTHER
the matters specified in Section 17A of the PC Act
without previous approval.
(b) To conduct inquiry, enquiry or investigation relating to
the matters specified in Section 17A of the PC Act, the
investigating officer must obtain the previous approval
and once the approval is granted the inquiry, enquiry
or investigation relating to the matters specified in
Section 17A of the PC Act can proceed.
(c) Section 17A, on a plain reading does not distinguish
the recommendations made or decisions taken before,
or after the commencement of said provision. To put it
differently, it does not create two classes of
recommendations made or decisions taken; namely
one before and another after the commencement of
Section17A of the PC Act.
47. If the aforementioned aspects are borne in mind,
one may take a view that Section17A procedure applies to all
matters referred to in Section17A, whether or not the
recommendations made or decisions taken before or after
introduction of Section17A. That would mean that Section 17A
will have retroactive application. That is to say it will apply to
- 24 -
CRL.P No. 101083 of 2026
C/W CRL.P No. 101192 of 2025
WP No. 106297 of 2026
AND 1 OTHER
facts/decisions/recommendations made prior to the provision
coming into force.
48. However the discussion does not end here. It is
necessary to apply one more test before taking a final call. The
Court has to find out whether such plain grammatical
interpretation leads to any absurdity or defeats the object
behind the provision.
49. The relevant portion of the objects and reasons for
the amendment of 2018 to PC Act read as under:
“An Act further to amend the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988
Be it enacted by Parliament in the Sixty-ninth Year of the
Republic of India as follows -
Prefetory Note - Statement of objects and Reasons - The
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, provides for
prevention of corruption and for matters connected
therewith. The ratification by India of the United Nations
Convention Against Corruption, the international practice
on treatment of the offence of bribery and corruption and
judicial pronouncements have necessitated a review of the
existing provisions of the Act and the need to amend it so
as to fill in gaps in description and coverage of the offence
of bribery so as to bring it in line with the current
- 25 -
CRL.P No. 101083 of 2026
C/W CRL.P No. 101192 of 2025
WP No. 106297 of 2026
AND 1 OTHER
international practice and also to meet more effectively,
the country's obligations under the aforesaid Convention.
Hence, the present Bill.
2. The salient features of the Bill, inter alia, are as
follows—
(a) xxx;
to
(j) xxx.
12. Insertion of new Section 17-A - After Section 17 of the
Principal Act, the following Section shall be inserted,
namely -
17-A. xxx
(Section 17A of the PC Act is extracted above in paragraph
No.33)
50. No specific reasons are specified in the Objects and
Reasons for introducing the Section 17A of the PC Act.
However, it can be inferred from the provision itself that
Section 17A aims to insulate honest officials from frivolous and
vexatious criminal prosecution.
51. The interpretation that Section 17A of the PC Act
requirement of prior approval to hold inquiry, enquiry or
- 26 -
CRL.P No. 101083 of 2026
C/W CRL.P No. 101192 of 2025
WP No. 106297 of 2026
AND 1 OTHER
investigation relating to all the matters specified in Section 17A
of the PC Act including the incidents that have occurred before
the amendment, applies if investigation is to commence
after 26.07.2018, is retroactive application of the provision .
In such situation Section 17A applies to all decisions and
recommendations, except those inquiries, enquiries or
investigations which are over before the introduction of
Section17A.
52. If the Court is to hold that Section 17A applies only
to those decisions or recommendations made after
26.07.2018 i.e., after the commencement of the
provision , (prospective application) then prior approval to
conduct the inquiry, enquiry or investigation relating to the
matters specified in Section 17A of the PC Act is not necessary
for the decisions or recommendations made prior to
26.07.2018. Such an interpretation apparently creates two
classes of persons, one who made decisions and
recommendations before 26.07.2018, and the other who did it
after 26.07.2018. Such classification does not seem to be
based on any intelligible differentia. If two interpretations are
- 27 -
CRL.P No. 101083 of 2026
C/W CRL.P No. 101192 of 2025
WP No. 106297 of 2026
AND 1 OTHER
plausible, the one which accords with Part III of the
Constitution is to be favored is the settled position of law.
53. The interpretation that Section 17A of the PC Act
applies to decisions and recommendations covered under
Section17A, irrespective of date of such incident, does not lead
to any absurdity and seeks to achieve object of protecting
honest public servants from vexatious and frivolous criminal
prosecution.
54. Keeping in mind the above aspects, if the
investigating officer is to conduct inquiry, enquiry or
investigation relating to the matters specified in Section 17A of
the PC Act which have taken place before introduction of
Section 17A, and the FIR is registered after 26.07.2018, the
most obvious questions that the investigating officer has to
answer are;
(a) What is the requirement of law as on the date of
commencing inquiry, enquiry and investigation?
(b) Does the law prescribe two different types of procedures
for holding inquiry, enquiry or investigation on the
- 28 -
CRL.P No. 101083 of 2026
C/W CRL.P No. 101192 of 2025
WP No. 106297 of 2026
AND 1 OTHER
decisions or recommendations made before and after the
introduction of Section 17A of the PC Act?.
55. The answer to question (a) is, that the law as it
stands after 26.07.2018, mandates prior approval before
proceeding under Section 17A of the PC Act.
56. The answer to question (b) is that Section 17A does
not prescribe two different procedures for holding inquiry,
enquiry or investigation for the decisions and the
recommendations made before or after the amendment of
2018.
57. Thus, even applying the settled principles of
interpretation of statute, the position will not change as there is
nothing in the language of Section 17A, or the Objects and
Reasons for introducing Section17A of the PC Act by way of an
amendment, to take a view that Section17A procedure is not
applicable, if the events occurred prior to introduction of
Section 17A and FIR is registered after the amendment of
2018.
- 29 -
CRL.P No. 101083 of 2026
C/W CRL.P No. 101192 of 2025
WP No. 106297 of 2026
AND 1 OTHER
58. Thus, in respect of investigation under Section 17A
of the PC Act, the investigating officer has to obtain prior
approval if the investigation is to commence after 26.07.2018
i.e. , the date of amendment to PC Act, even if the decisions and
recommendations referred to in Section17A are prior to
26.07.2018.
59. Analysis on Question (ii)
Whether the petitioners have made out a case
to quash FIR on the ground that FIR is registered 8
years after the decision or recommendation made by
the petitioners?
60. The contention raised relating to delay is not based
on limitation under Section 468 of Cr.P.C. or under Section 514
of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Since the
offences alleged are punishable with imprisonment of 7 years,
the question of limitation does not arise.
61. However, it is urged by Senior counsel Sri.
Bhagawat that the FIR registered 8-10 years after the alleged
- 30 -
CRL.P No. 101083 of 2026
C/W CRL.P No. 101192 of 2025
WP No. 106297 of 2026
AND 1 OTHER
decisions and recommendations are hit back by delay and
laches.
62. It is true that in deserving cases the Court may
take a view that the complaint lodged is hit by delay and laches
if there is inordinate delay. However, the as a matter of
principle the Court cannot would be extremely slow and
cautious in doing so.
63. In the present case, the FIR is lodged alleging
misappropriation of funds while carrying out public work by the
municipal corporation. The allegation is that the work is carried
out and payments are made even when the projects were not
within the ambit of the municipality. The contention relating to
delay and laches cannot be made applicable to present set of
facts of the case.
64. That being the position, the ratio laid down by the
Apex Court in State of Uttar Pradesh and another vs.
6
Mohd. Arshad Khan and another has no application to the
present petitions. The Apex Court in the said case was dealing
with a entirely different factual situation.
6
(2026) 6 SCC 383
- 31 -
CRL.P No. 101083 of 2026
C/W CRL.P No. 101192 of 2025
WP No. 106297 of 2026
AND 1 OTHER
65. In the matters relating to corruption,
misappropriation of public money, breach of trust by the public
servants and related matters the Courts should be extremely
slow in quashing the complaint or FIR on the ground of delay
and laches more so in situations where the acts and omissions
alleged are borne out by public records.
66. Since the Court has taken a view that investigation
inquiry or enquiry without previous approval under Section 17A
of PC Act, even in respect of decisions or recommendations by
a public servant made before 26.07.2018 is impermissible if FIR
is registered after 26.07.2018, the next question is whether FIR
has to be quashed and should there be a end to the process.
67. Though the FIR is required to be quashed, there
cannot be a complete closure as the Court is quashing the FIR
for not complying the procedure. The investigating officer shall
seek necessary approval from the competent authority as
required under Section 17A of PC Act.
68. The competent authority on considering the
materials to be placed before it shall pass appropriate order.
The competent authority has to apply its mind to the materials
- 32 -
CRL.P No. 101083 of 2026
C/W CRL.P No. 101192 of 2025
WP No. 106297 of 2026
AND 1 OTHER
placed before it and pass a reasoned order to avoid any
procedural infirmity.
69. CONCLUSIONS :
(i) The procedure contemplated under Section 17A of
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 applies to all inquiry,
enquiry or investigation relating to the matters covered
under Section 17A of the said Act, if the inquiry, enquiry
or investigation commences after 26.07.2018.
(ii) Section 17A of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 has no
application if inquiry, enquiry or investigation relating to
the matters covered under Section 17A of the said Act,
commenced before 26.07.2018.
(iii) The complaint is not hit by delay and latches.
70. However, the larger question is, should the law or
amended law be silent on its prospective, retroactive or
retrospective application, or should it have an explicit answer
to such question in the law itself?
71. The Courts answer the question by interpreting the
text and scheme of the law, if the law silent on the said issue.
- 33 -
CRL.P No. 101083 of 2026
C/W CRL.P No. 101192 of 2025
WP No. 106297 of 2026
AND 1 OTHER
Many a time there will be divergent opinions on the question
raised, not only by the High Courts but also by the Apex Court.
Then the matters are referred to the larger bench and finally
the issue gets resolved. Interpretation of Section 17A of PC Act
is one of such examples. It is 8 years since the law is amended
and the question whether the law is prospective or
retrospective is still pending consideration.
72. Many a time, years pass before the issue as to
whether the law is prospective, retrospective or retroactive is
resolved. There is uncertainty on the application of amended
law. The uncertainty leads to delay in investigation, trial and
disposal.
73. There is no denial that the Legislature, subject to
constitutional limitations, has the power to make a law and the
power to declare as to whether the law has prospective,
retroactive or retrospective effect. Law to be made by the
Legislature is for the benefit and protection of the people.
Absolute clarity on the implication of law is the fundamental
requirement of the legislative drafting.
- 34 -
CRL.P No. 101083 of 2026
C/W CRL.P No. 101192 of 2025
WP No. 106297 of 2026
AND 1 OTHER
74. Thus, the following questions do arise for
consideration by the stakeholders:
(i) Whether an enactment or a provision of law is prospective
or retrospective in its application should ever arise before
the Court, or should such question have an express
definite answer in the law itself?
(ii) To avoid litigation on the issue of the nature discussed
above, if not as a legislative compulsion, would it not be
a prudent legislative practice to make a definitive
declaration in the law or the amended law itself that the
law is prospective, or retrospective or retroactive?
(iii) Would it not be more appropriate to clarify the application
of amended law on the antecedent facts, on the pending
inquiry, investigation or pending cases in the amended
law itself?
75. It appears that whenever the law is amended, in
the very provision of law which is amended, declaration by the
Legislature as to whether the law is prospective, retroactive or
retrospective and its application to pending enquiry, inquiry,
investigation or case will go a long way in reducing certain
- 35 -
CRL.P No. 101083 of 2026
C/W CRL.P No. 101192 of 2025
WP No. 106297 of 2026
AND 1 OTHER
types of litigations, avoiding delay and improving the
administration of justice.
76. Given the huge number of cases that have gone up
to High Courts and the Apex Court, and huge number of
dissenting verdicts on the question of the prospective or
retrospective or retroactive application of law, the Court is
flagging the issue as it sincerely believes that the time has
come for the Legislature, Law Commissions, Jurists, Bar
Councils, Lawyers, Academicians and all the stakeholders to
engage in meaningful discussion and deliberation on the issue
and find a solution.
77. Hence, the following:
ORDER
(i) The Petitions are allowed in part.
(ii) The investigation based on FIR registered as
Crime No.09/2024 by the Karnataka
Lokayuktha, Ballary is quashed.
(iii) The investigating officer shall seek necessary
approval as required under Section 17A of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
- 36 -
CRL.P No. 101083 of 2026
C/W CRL.P No. 101192 of 2025
WP No. 106297 of 2026
AND 1 OTHER
(iv) Needless to say that the authority under
Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 shall pass appropriate orders strictly
within the time frame contemplated in Section
17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Sd/-
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
JUDGE
CHS/BRN/GVP