SRI D S VEERAIAH vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY

Reserved on : 20.02.2025 Pronounced on : 29.04.2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION No. 31828 OF 2024 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: SRI D.S.VEERAIAH S/O SHRI SIDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS R/AT NO.73, BANASHANKARI RD STAGE, BDA LAYOUT 18 TH MAIN ROAD, GIRINAGAR BENGALURU - 560 085. X-MLC. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI ANGAD KAMATH, ADVOCATE AND SRI HARISHKUMAR C., ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA BY WILSONGARDEN P.S, REPRESENTED BY HGCP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU - 560 001. 2 . SRI C.N.SHIVA PRAKASH R AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS S/O GOWDA NARASAPPA MANAGING DIRECTOR D.DEVARAJ URS TRUCK LTD., TTMC BUILDING SHANTHI NAGAR BENGALURU - 560 027. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI PRAVEEN GOWDA, SPL. PP FOR R1; SRI M.N.MUNIREDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTION 528 OF BNSS., PRAYING TO DECLARE THE FIR DTD. 23.09.2023 AND THE RESULTANT FINAL REPORT / CHARGESHEET NO. CID/CIU/02/2024 (ANNX-A) FILED BY THE R-1 CID FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SEC 120B, 409, 420, 465, 471, 468 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 NOW PENDING BEFORE THE HONBLE CITY CIVIL JUDGE , BENGALURU CCH-82 AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER HEREIN IN AS ILLEGAL AND NON EST IN LAW. THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 20.02.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CAV ORDER The petitioner/accused No.2 calls in question registration of a crime in Crime No.243 of 2023 registered for offences punishable under Sections 120B, 409, 420, 465, 468 and 471 of the IPC and pending before the LXXXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. 2. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:- The petitioner is a seasoned politician and at the relevant point in time was working as Chairman of D. Devaraj Urs Truck Terminal Limited (the Terminal for short). It is also averred that he has served as a Member of the Legislative Council for over two terms. The 2 nd respondent, one C.N.Shiva Prakash, Managing Director of the Terminal registers a complaint on 22-09-2023 before the Wilson Garden Police Station that the Terminal is a Government enterprise engaged in the development and management of truck Terminal. 194 th Board meeting of the Directors was held on 25-10-2021. A total of 10 Directors and the then Chairman and the then Managing Director had participated in the said meeting and about 37 items and one additional agenda item were discussed and resolutions were passed in the meeting for each item in the agenda of the Terminal. In terms of the resolutions of the day, which also contained piece work contract for the purpose of repair and maintenance work of the Terminal, the process of tender was 4 obviated, as tenders would need time to complete the process. The repairs and maintenance work to be carried out of all their Terminals was within the limit of 5/- lakhs on each terminal. Therefore, approval of the Board was sought to submit the proposal seeking permission of the Government to carry out the works directly from the hands of qualified contractors. 3. After deliberations in the meeting, a parcel-wise contract for emergency work was awarded to a Company for 10 crores. This comes to be approved. Long after the exit of the petitioner and accused No.1, the incoming Managing Director registers the complaint. The complaint contains that works close to 47.10 crores that were undertaken during the period of the petitioner and accused No.1 were found to be suspicious, as the works were awarded to the contractors without taking recourse to the provisions of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Act, 1999. The registration of the complaint becomes a crime in Crime No.243 of 2023. Registration of the crime is what has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition. 5 4. Heard Sri Angad Kamath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri Praveen Gowda, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri M.N. Munireddy, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. 5. The learned counsel Sri Angad Kamath appearing for the petitioner vehemently contends that, the petitioner being a public servant at the relevant point in time, working as Chairman of a Government enterprise, prior approval under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 (the PC Act for short) ought to have been taken for any investigation to commence. Though the offence under the IPC was registered, it was factually, in entirety, offences under the PC Act. Approval under Section 17A was sought and was granted against accused No.1, but refused against the petitioner. After grant of approval, charge sheet is filed against both accused Nos. 1 and 2. Sanction is granted under Section 19 of the PC Act to prosecute both the accused against accused No.1, the offences are both under the P.C.Act and the IPC but against accused No.2, it is only IPC offences. It is, therefore, the submission that deliberately Sections 409, 420, 465 and 468 are alleged, out of which Section 409 is similar to Section 13(1)(a) of Page No.5 is retyped and replaced vide chamber order dated 12.05.2025 6 the PC Act. To get away the rigour of Section 17A of the PC Act crime is registered against unknown persons. The charge sheet is filed under the PC Act. In effect, the submission of the learned counsel is that, the offences though ostensibly clothed in IPC provisions, are in essence under the PC Act. He would seek quashment of the same. 6. Per contra , the learned Special Public Prosecutor Sri Praveen Gowda would vehemently refute the submissions to contend that, there is no question of approval under Section 17A of the PC Act, unless the offence projected is of anything that was under the PC Act. It is admittedly not. Therefore, the submission is that the learned counsel for the petitioner is trying to obfuscate the issue while projecting a camouflage. When there was no offence under the PC Act at the outset and during the investigation it is found that the offence under the PC Act has emerged, it is not incumbent upon the Investigating Agency to obtain approval at the time of filing of the charge sheet. What is necessary then is sanction under Section 19 of the Act and under Section 19 sanction is granted. He would, therefore, contend that petitioner/accused No.2 conniving with accused No.1 has caused huge loss to the Page No.6 is retyped and replaced vide chamber order dated 12.05.2025 7 Terminal and unjust gains to himself and, therefore, the Court should not interfere at this stage of the proceedings. 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record. 8. The afore-narrated facts, dates and link in the chain of events are not in dispute. The petitioner, at the relevant point in time, was working as Chairman of the Terminal. Accused No.1 was its Managing Director. Certain resolutions are passed by the Board which have become the subject matter of crime. The resolutions were concerning issuance of work order on piecemeal basis for repair of the Terminal. The allegation is that about 47/- crores has been either mismanaged or misappropriated. Both accused Nos. 1 and 2 at the relevant point in time were public servants. The subject petition concerns accused No.2, the Chairman. The incoming Managing Director after the exit of accused No.1, on the allegation that there has been misutilization of funds registered the complaint on 22-09-2023. Since the entire issue now sprung from 8 the complaint, I deem it appropriate to notice the complaint. It reads as follows: . . ( ) , ##% ' & ' '( , . )* . +, , -. , '1 -560 027 zAgAaAtA AASEa: 080-2222 3753/58 e-mail: dduttl.1980@gmail.com ## / 5 /2023-24/413 78 , AAPA : 22-09-2023 9:;7 , <> 8> ? 9: -. , EAUA14AgAA 560 027. aAiAAagEA, < : . A . C 194 C 5 E F5G .H .I , J% , #KK LM CG (N% , +O PQ K7 F% , & J 7 ( 8U . ----- 1. . A VW, ( G . . C Q(ZQ[ ) C \[M ( ]_` , C:( a[%M , P . +O C[ ; w% 5 +O( C # 8U ,[M , 5( _M aH ) 8 ]_` \j V 8 ]i 5 , #K #K #K #K LM LM LM LM VZ VZ VZ VZ \ \ \ \ 87 87 87 87 }~85 }~85 }~85 }~85' ' ' ' .5%m7 .5%m7 .5%m7 .5%m7 , , , , .,88 .,88 .,88 .,88 < < < < wGQ( wGQ( wGQ( wGQ( 87G 87G 87G 87G V V V VZ Z Z Z \ \ \ \ }~85 }~85 }~85 }~85 .5% .5% .5% .5% " ]iG ( .5%a, . ( CqAPA 15. ;7 C , _ , , +78 , +, , ga , +78 Qq > JZ E . ? . + ( C ) ]i 5 , - I(a I(a I(a I(a .8[ .8[ .8[ .8[ +,G +,G +,G +,G ( ( ( ( 5 5 5 5 x x x x CQ[, CQ[, CQ[, CQ[, C( C( C( C( .,8G .,8G .,8G .,8G C C C C x x x x C C C C 8sQr 8sQr 8sQr 8sQr _ _ _ _Q[ Q[ Q[ Q[ . 7S[m_( 7S[m_( 7S[m_( 7S[m_( ]iG ( .5%a, . ( 16. PQ 85% QH , m\G 7% PQGe t,H +7 G F% C G I , ' C8 ; & J , VZ .,88 <(_M 5 E E F5G .I , . # . K . K LM 13 ( J J 775 G h% C8 J 47.10 #H hG Jm _, . 17. P G Qt% , 194 C 5 E F5( < . 28 e ;%a , CG .I C G , C8 , & J M_ 194 C 5 F5 QG % , m QG hJ [m , C8 J 47.10 # h\ \[m PQGe _m7 7 ( G F% ) E[S[ <` Cq J , J e ea CAgAzsA zAAqA AAvE (IPC) EPAei 405, 406, 407, 409, 419, 420, 464, 120 J , 120 , G a8Hsa 7 C +O C[ C8 (.,M . b1_8 , <-v% , A/- (% . > . ) +O C ## , '1. This becomes a crime in Crime No.243 of 2023. The issue now would be, whether the petitioner being a public servant, prior approval for conduct of inquiry, enquiry or investigation was imperative or otherwise. Therefore, it becomes germane to compare the two provisions under the IPC and the Act. The offence is under Section 409 of the IPC. 14 Section 409 of the IPC: 409. Criminal breach of trust by public servant, or by banker, merchant or agent . Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property in his capacity of a public servant or in the way of his business as a banker, merchant, factor, broker, attorney or agent, commits criminal breach of trust in respect of that property, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. (Emphasis supplied) Section 409 of the IPC deals with breach of trust by a public servant. The definition of which is found in Section 405. Section 405 of the IPC reads as follows: 405. Criminal breach of trust . Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or wilfully suffers any other person so to do, commits criminal breach of trust. Explanation 1.A person, being an employer of an establishment whether exempted under Section 17 of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952), or not] who deducts the employee's contribution from the wages payable to the employee for credit to a Provident Fund or Family Pension Fund 15 established by any law for the time being in force, shall be deemed to have been entrusted with the amount of the contribution so deducted by him and if he makes default in the payment of such contribution to the said fund in violation of the said law, shall be deemed to have dishonestly used the amount of the said contribution in violation of a direction of law as aforesaid. Explanation 2 .A person, being an employer, who deducts the employees' contribution from the wages payable to the employee for credit to the Employees' State Insurance Fund held and administered by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation established under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), shall be deemed to have been entrusted with the amount of the contribution so deducted by him and if he makes default in the payment of such contribution to the said Fund in violation of the said Act, shall be deemed to have dishonestly used the amount of the said contribution in violation of a direction of law as aforesaid. (Emphasis supplied) Whoever being in any manner entrusted with the property dishonestly misappropriates or converts it to his own use is said to be committing an offence of criminal breach of trust. Now let me notice Section 13 of the PC Act. Section 13 of the PC Act: 13. Criminal misconduct by a public servant . [(1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct, ( a ) if he dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriates or otherwise converts for his own use any property entrusted to him or any 16 property under his control as a public servant or allows any other person so to do; or ( b ) if he intentionally enriches himself illicitly during the period of his office. Explanation 1 .A person shall be presumed to have intentionally enriched himself illicitly if he or any person on his behalf, is in possession of or has, at any time during the period of his office, been in possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account for. Explanation .The expression known sources of income means income received from any lawful sources.] (2) Any public servant who commits criminal misconduct shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than [four years] but which may extend to 32 [ten years] and shall also be liable to fine. (Emphasis supplied) In juxtaposition: Indian Penal Code, 1860 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Section 409 Section 13 409. Criminal breach of trust by public servant, or by banker, merchant or agent. Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property in his capacity of a public servant or in the way of his business as a banker, merchant, factor, broker, attorney or 13. Criminal misconduct by a public servant . (1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct, ( a ) if he dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriates or otherwise converts for 17 agent, commits criminal breach of trust in respect of that property, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. his own use any property entrusted to him or any property under his control as a public servant or allows any other person so to do; or Section 13 deals with criminal misconduct by a public servant. A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct if he dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriates or otherwise converts for his own use any property entrusted to him or under his control, as a public servant. If Section 409 of the IPC, ingredients of which are found in Section 405 of the IPC, as juxtaposed ( supra ) with Section 13 of the PC Act ( supra ), what does unmistakably manifest is Section 409 of the IPC and Section 13(1)(a) of the PC Act are twin reflections of the same essence Criminal Misappropriation by a public servant. Thus, the soul of Section 405 and Section 13 are the same. 9. A situation may ensue that against a public servant, crime has to be registered, if it has to be registered for offences under the 18 PC Act prior approval under Section 17A is mandatory, but if it is to be registered on a verbatim similar offence of Section 409 of the IPC, such prior approval would not be required. Therefore, the prosecution comes up with a novel idea of registering a crime against unknown persons, while they are fully aware of the fact of the matter and who is allegedly responsible. This is what is discernable from the complaint. 10. The complaint is quoted supra. Everything in the complaint relates to 194 th Board resolution. The petitioner is the Chairman and Managing Director is the Member of the Board. Narration is about all that has happened in the Board meeting and its execution. Who else can be blamed; it is the petitioner and others. But, the crime is registered against unknown persons. This is the deliberate act on the part of the prosecution to get away the rigour of Section 17A of the PC Act. The prosecution has realised during the conduct of investigation that approval under Section 17A of the PC Act is necessary. It then seeks approval at the hands of the Competent Authority. The order granting approval reads as follows: 19 m+, : PQ Q q (1) ( ( , . , C , \a , +C Qq , d7 , '1 <` 7a S wGQ( _ :27/05/2024 7 u\v\a G 7 +\ ( [ , C , P< ) CH 1957 C 10(2)( ) v +\r J,85% % . PQ Q q (2) ( ? )C , % . . . <- H , H , '1 ( \ P || . VW C( F ;( +O g[ +\ (% . . < &> %M J| ) C , \a , +C Qq '1 H \[ % ; a [m Cqr #h wGQ( 8U ;% Cq;7 ...# +, , '1 \ P || . VW C , '1 ( w C P8 _ :14/11/2021 7 _ :11/07/2022 8 +O C[ Cw.,M ( \[ % ; a [m Cqr #h wGQ( ( <` }hy C LM 1988 13( & ) G % Cq LM 17( ) ( & ) v ? )C , 20 % . . . <- H , H , '1 78 u\. CQ[ . i -+ , )7( A/- 16/07/20214 G , TM. , \a Qq . The approval is granted against one S.Shankarappa, accused No.1 and not against the petitioner, accused No.2. Nonetheless, investigation progressed. On completion of investigation, since the offences are under the PC Act, it is transferred to the Special Court. The noting and the order passed by the Special Court on receipt of records is as follows: 27-07-2024 Submitted: Received records from the Court of XLII ACMM, Bengaluru on the point of jurisdiction as the offences are U/Sec.409, 420, 465, 468, 471, 120B IPC and Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. The record has been verified at page No.1 to 467 and found in order as per their index sheet. Received the case files from the learned 42 nd ACMM, Bengaluru Call on 29-07-2024. Sd/- (Santhosh Gajanan Bhat) 21 Accused No.1 is in J.C and Accused No.2 is on bail. Hence, put-up for honours kind orders. LXXXI ACC & SJ, Bangalore (CCH82) ... ... .... The Investigation leads to filing of the charge sheet. The offences in the charge sheet are not restricted to the offences under the IPC. The offences now alleged are inclusive of offences under Section 13(2) of the PC Act qua accused No.1. Insofar as the petitioner is concerned, the charge sheet is filed for the offences under the IPC. After filing of the charge sheet, the prosecution seeks from the hands of the Competent Authority sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act. Sanction is now accorded by the Competent Authority to prosecute both the petitioner and accused No.1 along with others on 31-12-2024. 11. What would unmistakably emerge from the grant of sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act is that, the offence always related to the functioning of the petitioner as a public servant. Therefore, the prosecution has devised a method of projecting only offences under Section 409 and 420 of the IPC which are clearly identical to Section 13 of the PC Act, to get away with the rigour of prior approval under Section 17A of the PC Act. It is now too well Page No.21 is retyped and replaced vide chamber order dated 12.05.2025 22 settled principle of law as to what would the purport of Section 17A of the PC Act. Section 17A of the PC Act was brought into force on 26-07-2018, it was one of those amendments to the Prevention of Corruption Act along with a slew of amendments, by the Amending Act of 2018. Section 17A of the PC Act runs 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 . 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: 23 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. In terms of the above extracted provision of law, introduced by an amendment, no Police Officer shall conduct any enquiry, inquiry or investigation, into any offence alleged to have been committed by a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act, where the alleged offence is relatable to any recommendation made or decisions taken by such public servant in discharge of his official functions or duties, without the previous approval of the Competent Authority. 12. Clause (a) thereof provides that in case of public servant who is or was employed in connection with the affairs of the Union, at the time when the offence alleged to have been committed, the previous approval of the Central Government shall be obtained. Clause (b) likewise provides that in case of a public servant who is or was an employee in connection with the affairs of the State, at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed, the 24 approval of the State Government shall be obtained before proceeding. Clause (c) provides that in case of any other person who comes within the definition of public servant, previous approval of the Competent Authority to remove him from office, at the time when the offence alleged to have been committed should be obtained. The narrative hereinabove cannot but indicate that the object of the Section was to protect public servants from malicious, vexatious or baseless prosecution. Therefore, if enquiry into the circumstances in which the alleged administrative or official act was done by the public servant or where malfeasance committed by the public servant, which would involve an element of dishonesty or impropriety is to be proceeded against, the approval of the Competent Authority is imperative under Section 17A of the PC Act. 13. The importance of Section 17A is also considered by the Apex Court in the case of YASHWANT SINHA v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION . The Apex Court though did not consider as to how the previous approval of the Competent (2020) 2 SCC 338 25 Authority has to be taken, but considered the amendment and its importance in the following paragraphs: "117. In terms of Section 17-A, 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 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 17-A was inserted. The complaint is dated 4.10.2018. Para 5 sets out the relief which is sought in the complaint which is to register an FIR under various provisions. Paras 6 and 7 of the complaint are relevant in the context of Section 17-A, which read 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 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 26 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. (emphasis supplied) 118. Therefore, the petitioners have filed the complaint fully knowing that Section 17-A 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 17-A 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 17-A. Under the law, as it stood, both on the date of filing the petition and even as of today, Section 17-A continues to be on the statute book and it constitutes a bar to any inquiry or enquiry or investigation. The petitioners themselves, in the complaint, request to seek approval in terms of Section 17-A but when it comes to the relief sought in the writ petition, there was no relief claimed in this behalf. 119. Even proceeding on the basis that on petitioners' complaint, an FIR must be registered as it purports to disclose cognizable offences and the Court must so direct, will it not be a futile exercise having regard to Section 17-A. I am, therefore, of the view that though otherwise the petitioners in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 298 of 2018 may have made out a case, having regard to the law actually laid down in Lalita Kumari [Lalita kumari v. State of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1: (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 524], and more importantly, Section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, in a review petition, the petitioners cannot succeed. However, it is my view that the judgment sought to be reviewed, would not stand in the way of the first respondent in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 298 of 2018 from taking action on Ext. P-1, complaint in 27 accordance with law and subject to first respondent obtaining previous approval under Section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act." (Emphasis supplied) In the light of Section 17A creating a protective filter for vexatious and frivolous prosecution and complaints to pass muster to the rigors of Section 17A of the PC Act, I am of the considered view that it must be observed with complete strictness bearing in mind public interest, and protection available to such officers against whom offences are alleged, failing which many a time it would result in a vexatious prosecution. 14. In the light of the mandate of Section 17A, no camouflage proceedings can be permitted to get over the rigour of Section 17A of the PC Act. Therefore, the very initiation of proceedings without obtaining prior approval under Section 17A, completing the investigation, filing the charge sheet are all acts that are contrary to law. It is not that the prosecution is not aware of the fact that prior approval under Section 17A is necessary or otherwise. It did seek approval during the investigation. Approval is not granted against the petitioner. But, nonetheless the prosecution filed a charge sheet 28 and then sought sanction. Sanction is granted. The prior approval under Section 17A is admittedly not granted. Therefore, the prosecution is wanting to build its edifice on shifting sands. Sanction obtained post facto under Section 19 of the PC Act cannot cure the threshold illegality of not having prior approval under Section 17A of the PC Act. Therefore, the foundation being infirm the structure cannot be sustained. Section 17A of the PC Act, cuts at the root of the matter. The petition thus deserves to succeed. 15. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: O R D E R (i) Writ Petition is allowed. (ii) The registration of crime against the petitioner and its aftermath, stand quashed qua the petitioner. (iii) It is made clear that the findings rendered herein are only for the purpose of consideration of the case of the petitioner under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The same 29 would not become applicable to any other accused in the subject crime. I.A.No.1 of 2024 also stands disposed, as a consequence. S d /- ( M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE bkp CT:SS