Tejaram vs State Of Rajasthan

REPORTABLE
2026 INSC 1147


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 11709 of 2025)


TEJARAM …APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF RAJASTHAN …RESPONDENT



J U D G M E N T


N.V. ANJARIA, J.


Leave granted.
2. By preferring this appeal by special leave, the
appellant seeks to call in question judgment and order dated
26.03.2025 passed by the High Court of Rajasthan at
1
Jodhpur , whereby the High Court dismissed Criminal
Revision Petition No. 1608 of 2024 of the appellant herein,
Signature Not Verified
challenging the order dated 12.09.2024 of learned Special
Digitally signed by
LOKESH ARORA
Date: 2026.10.16
18:15:48 IST
Reason:

1
Hereinafter “High Court”


Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 11709 of 2025 Page 1 of 17

2
Judge, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Pali in Sessions Case No.2
of 2024 framing a charge against the appellant for the
offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
3
1988 , which order of Trial Court came to be upheld.
3. Sifted from unnecessary details, the pertinent facts
are that the appellant was a constable posted at the office of
Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sirohi, Rajasthan. It
appears that the appellant levelled an allegation of graft on
the complainant named Devendra Kumar who was also a
constable posted at Police Station, Abu City, Sirohi,
Rajasthan. The complainant was asked to visit Madurai
along with another constable for official work relating to an
investigation. The appellant alleged that the complainant
had taken illegal gratification from the accused persons to
allow them to escape.
3.1 It is the case of the appellant that, in retaliation the
complainant sent a false e-mail dated 22.04.2021 to the
Anti-Corruption Bureau and alleged that the appellant had
demanded bribe of Rs.1.5 lakh on behalf of the

2
Hereinafter “Trial Court”
3
Hereinafter “PC Act”


Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 11709 of 2025 Page 2 of 17

4
Superintendent of Police. First Information Report No. 174
of 2021 dated 04.06.2021 came to be registered against the
appellant under Section 7A of the PC Act and under Section
5
120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 .
3.2 Thereafter, the chargesheet came to be filed against
the appellant under Section 7 of the PC Act. The case came
to be committed to the Trial Court to be registered as
Sessions Case No. 2 of 2024. By order dated 12.09.2024, the
charge against the appellant was directed to be framed for
the offence punishable under Section 7 of the PC Act as
amended in 2018.
3.3 The aggrieved appellant challenged order dated
12.09.2024 passed by the Trial Court framing the charge as
above, by filing Criminal Revision Petition before the High
Court. The High Court dismissed the same leading the
appellant to approach this Court.
4. The principal contention raised by learned Senior
Counsel Mr. Abhimanyu Bhandari for the appellant to assail

4
Hereinafter “FIR”
5
Hereinafter “IPC”


Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 11709 of 2025 Page 3 of 17

the impugned judgment and order of the High Court as well
as against framing the charge by the Trial Court was that
since the appellant was a public servant, the provision
under Section 17A of the PC Act ought to have been
complied with before initiating investigation. It was
submitted that Section 17A of the PC Act was mandatory
and created a bar against initiation of any enquiry or
investigation against a public servant for the acts done in
discharge of official functions without prior approval of the
competent authority.

4.1 Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submitted
that the High Court erred in dismissing the Revision Petition
by relying on the judgment in Nara Chandrababu Naidu vs.
6
State of Andhra Pradesh , while disregarding the position
of law laid down in Yashwant Sinha and Others vs. Central
7
Bureau of Investigation . It was further submitted that
prior approval under Section 17A of the PC Act was a
mandatory and that the failure to obtain such approval
cannot be cured at a subsequent stage. Learned Senior

6
(2020) 2 SCC 338
7
(2020) 2 SCC 338


Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 11709 of 2025 Page 4 of 17

Counsel further submitted that the question whether
Sections 17A and 19 of the PC Act are procedural or
substantive remains pending consideration before this
8
B.S Yeddiyurappa vs. A. Alam Pasha and Others
Court in .
4.2 On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate
General for the State of Rajasthan Ms. Sansriti Pathak
submitted that Section 17A does not provide for blanket
immunity in respect of all actions taken by the public
servants and that those actions and conducts which are
criminal in nature or are unrelated to their official duties
cannot be protected. Referring to essential ingredients
necessary to be satisfied for applying Section 17A of the Act,
learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent-
State submitted that the case involved the allegation of
demand of illegal gratification and the FIR was filed for such
alleged criminal act, and that it was in no way part of the
discharge of official functions by the appellant nor relatable
to any recommendation or decision in discharge of his duty.

8
2025 SCC OnLine SC 836


Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 11709 of 2025 Page 5 of 17

4.2.1 It was submitted that the appellant did not
challenge the FIR which was filed in the year 2021. It was
highlighted that on 08.12.2023, sanction for prosecution
under Section 19 of the PC Act was granted and a
chargesheet was subsequently filed on 19.01.2024, framing
the charge under Section 7 of the PC Act.
4.2.2 It was next submitted that the reliance placed by
the appellant on the decision of this Court in Yashwant
Sinha (supra) was misplaced, inasmuch as it has no bearing
on the facts of the present case when Section 17A is not
attracted at all. It was submitted that the same way,
Yeddyurappa (supra) would also not apply as none of the
questions framed therein are relevant for the present matter.
It was submitted that the issue regarding validity of Section
17A of the Act has been referred to larger bench by judgment
and order dated 13.01.2026 passed by this Court in Centre
for Public Interest Litigation vs. Union of India in W.P.
(C) No. 1373 of 2018, but the said aspect has no relevance,
as Section 17A of the PC Act is not attracted at all in the
facts of the case.


Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 11709 of 2025 Page 6 of 17

5. Recapitulating the facts, FIR No. 174 of 2021 was
lodged on 04.06.2021 on the basis of the complaint dated
22.04.2021 made by the complainant Devendra Kumar,
alleging an offence against the appellant under Section 7A
of the PC Act, inter alia, that the appellant demanded bribe
in the name of Superintendent of Police. The appellant was
arrested on 01.09.2021. On 08.12.2023, sanction for
prosecution under Section 19 of the PC Act was granted, and
a chargesheet bearing No. 06 of 2024 dated 19.01.2024
came to be filed in respect of the aforesaid offence under the
PC Act against the appellant. On 12.09.2024, the Trial Court
framed a charge against the appellant.
5.1 Adverting to Section 17A of the PC Act at the outset,
it reads as under,
“ 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-


Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 11709 of 2025 Page 7 of 17

( 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.”


5.1.1 A bare perusal of the aforesaid Section goes to show
that it provides that no police officer shall conduct an
enquiry or investigation into any offence which is alleged to
have been committed by a public servant under the PC Act,
where the alleged offence is relatable to any recommendation
made or decision taken by such public servant, and further that
the same has to be in discharge of official functions or official


Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 11709 of 2025 Page 8 of 17

duties of such public servant, against whom enquiry or
investigation is to be initiated.
5.1.2 If those conditions are satisfied, a previous approval of
the competent authority as per sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c) would
be necessary. The First Proviso of the section says that no such
approval shall be necessary in respect of the 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. As per the Second Proviso, the authority concerned
shall convey its decision under this provision within stipulated
time, which is extendable by recording reasons for such
extension.
5.2 In Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Santosh
9
Karnani and Another , the appellant-Central Bureau of
Investigation was aggrieved by the order of the High Court
of Gujarat whereby the High Court allowed the anticipatory
bail application of the respondent in connection with the FIR
which was in respect of the offence under Section 7 of the
PC Act.

9
(2023) SCC OnLine SC 427


Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 11709 of 2025 Page 9 of 17

5.2.1 The contention that the prior approval of
investigation, as per under Section 17A of the PC Act was
not obtained and thus the proceedings initiated against the
respondent were vitiated, was rejected stating that it had no
legal basis,
“Section 17A merely contemplates that police
officers shall not conduct any enquiry, inquiry or
investigation into any offence alleged to have been
committed by a public servant where the alleged
offence is relatable to any recommendation made or
decision taken in discharge of official functions or
duties, without the previous approval of the
competent authority. The first proviso to the section
states that such approval is not necessary in cases
involving arrest of the person on the spot on the
charges of accepting undue advantage.”
(Para 33)


5.2.2 The accusation against the appellant in the
aforementioned case did not involve any recommendation
made or decision taken by him in his official capacity as a
public servant. This Court observed, which observations
equally apply to the facts of the present case.
“As may be seen, the first proviso to Section 17A
refers to cases wherein a public servant is charged
with acceptance of an undue advantage or attempt
thereof. A prior approval or sanction to investigate
such an officer in a trap case is likely to defeat the
very purpose of trap and the investigation, which is
not the underlying intention of the legislature. The
investigation against Respondent No. 1, being an
accused of demanding a bribe, did not require any


Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 11709 of 2025 Page 10 of 17

previous approval of the Central Government. That
apart, the accusation against Respondent No. 1
does not revolve around any recommendations
made or decisions taken by him in his quasi-
judicial or administrative capacity.”
(Para 34)
5.3 The decision in Santosh Karnani (supra) was
quoted to be relied on in Surendra Dhariwal vs. The State
of Rajasthan and Another Etc. which was Criminal Appeal
Nos. 3717-3718 of 2025 decided on 25.08.2025. Again, it
was a case wherein the FIR was registered for the offence
punishable under Section 7 of the PC Act and Sections 384,
120-B and 201 of the IPC.
5.4 The judicial view on the above score is consistent
and categorical. Yet in another and more recent decision of
this Court in Anil Daima Etc. vs. State of Rajasthan and
10
Others , the petitioner before this Court was prosecuted for
the offence punishable under Section 7 and Section 7A
respectively of the PC Act. It was also a case for demand of
illegal gratification as in the present case.
5.4.1 This Court dispelled the contention about the
applicability of Section 17A of the Act, observing,

10
2026 SCC OnLine SC 807


Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 11709 of 2025 Page 11 of 17

“The entire submission of the learned counsel is
thoroughly misconceived. Section 17-A came to be
enacted with a particular object. Section 17-A talks
about enquiry or inquiry or investigation of offences
relatable to recommendations made or decision
taken by public servant in discharge of official
functions or duties. Section 17-A by any stretch of
imagination cannot be applied to cases of demand
of illegal gratification.”
(Para 7)


5.5 In Shankara Bhat vs. State of Kerala and
11
Others , the Kerala High Court observed that Section
197(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Section
17A of the PC Act though operate in two different fields and
in distinct situations, they have, in common, the aspect of
offence committed by the public servant while acting or
purporting to act in discharge of his official duty. It was
stated that the commission of crime by public servant which
had no connection with his official duty, cannot be
considered to be falling within the ambit of Section 17A of
the PC Act.

5.5.1 It was stated that the offences like
misappropriation, falsification of accounts, cheating,
criminal breach of trust, receiving bribes, etc. are beyond

11
2021 SCC OnLine Ker 16357


Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 11709 of 2025 Page 12 of 17

the scope of the provision. The same dictum of law was
reiterated by the same High Court in M.R. Simon vs. State
12
of Kerala .
6.
An unequivocal position of law emanates from the
above decisions about the scope and extent of applicability
of Section 17A of the PC Act which contemplates taking a
prior approval before investigation or inquiry against a
public servant. The language of the provision itself outlines
and circumscribes the ambit of operation of the provision.
The decisive phrase in the section is “discharge his official
functions or duties”. Though the legislature has intended to
protect the public servant from being prosecuted by
engrafting Section 17A in the statute book, the protection
envisaged could be extended only if the conditions
contemplated in the Section are satisfied. The Section
cannot be viewed to have an omnibus application.
6.1 In order that the provisions of Section 17A of the PC
Act applies, there has to be a “decision” or
“recommendation” by a public servant against whom an

12
2024 SCC OnLine Ker 7255


Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 11709 of 2025 Page 13 of 17

enquiry or investigation is to be initiated. Such “decision” or
“recommendation” shall be a “decision” taken or
“recommendation” made by such public servant in
discharge of his official functions or duties. In other words,
the alleged offence against the public servant must be
relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken by
such public servant in discharge of his official duties. These
primary and essential aspects are absent in the present case
to attract Section 17A of the PC Act. The allegation is of
demanding illegal gratification by the appellant, which is a
pure criminal act unconnected to discharge of the official
functions or duties.
6.2 Thus, from the plain language of the provision of
Section 17A, it is evident that the provision is confined to be
applied in the situations where there is a recommendation
or a decision taken by a public servant in discharge of his
official duties. The allegation against the appellant in the
present case is that of a criminal act, namely that the
appellant demanded illegal gratification of Rs.1.5 lakh. The
conduct on the part of the appellant, by no stretch of
imagination, can be treated as part of the discharge of his


Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 11709 of 2025 Page 14 of 17

official functions. It was not in any way relatable to
recommendation or a decision taken by the appellant in
discharge of his official duties but was an act unrelated to
his official duty.
6.3 In the aforesaid view, Section 17A of the PC Act is
not applicable in the case of appellant herein. None of the
ingredients provided for in the Section is satisfied to attract
its operation. The act of demanding a bribe is a pure
criminal act, not connected with official functions and not
relatable to or having any linkage with recommendation or
decision of the appellant in his capacity, as public servant.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, the act
of the appellant does not fall within the protective umbrella
of Section 17A of the Act. It could not be said that the
proceedings were vitiated for want of sanction.
7. Disposing of the submission of the learned counsel
for the appellant that the issue regarding the validity of
Section 17A of the PC Act is referred to a larger bench by
this Court as per order dated 13.01.2026 passed in Centre
for Public Interest Litigation (supra) it is to be stated that
,


Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 11709 of 2025 Page 15 of 17

the reference has no connection with the issue involved in
the present case since the present case could be decided
without awaiting the reference, when Section 17A of the PC
Act has no applicability at all.
8. In the impugned judgment and order, the High
Court has noted that subsequent sanction for prosecution
under Section 19 of the PC Act has been taken. A faint
attempt was made on behalf of the appellant to contend that
it was a belated sanction obtained. Evaluating the said
aspect in the light of the operative facts in the present case,
firstly as held above, Section 17A has no application. As far
as Section 19 is concerned, sanction was taken as alleged
before the cognizance was taken, it would amount to mere
an irregularity. It cannot be said to be vitiating the entire
criminal proceedings and the trial that would take place, on
the count of said aspect as well. The trial would be
conducted on its merits, where the respective parties would
raise their rival contentions.
9. The High Court was justified in dismissing the
Criminal Revision Petition of the appellant. The judgment


Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 11709 of 2025 Page 16 of 17

and order of the High Court warrants no interference. It is
upheld.
10. For the reasons recorded by the High Court and for
those supplied additionally in this judgment by this Court,
it is ruled that Section 17A of the PC Act would not be
attracted in the facts of the case and that want of prior
sanction thereunder by the competent authority, has in no
manner vitiated the initiation of criminal proceedings
against the appellant.
11. The appeal stands dismissed.
Any interlocutory application, if pending, shall not
survive in view of the dismissal of the appeal.

..………………………...J.
[S.V.N BHATTI]




………………………….J.
[N.V. ANJARIA]
NEW DELHI;
OCTOBER 16, 2026.


Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 11709 of 2025 Page 17 of 17