Prior approval under Section 17A PC Act is mandatory for investigating public servants for official acts.

The applicant filed a private complaint (P.H. No. 1/2023) before the Principal District Sessions Judge, Kheda, against respondent Nos. 2 to 9, alleging offenses under Sections 164, 165, and 120(A) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 7, 7(A), 8, 9, 11, and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act).

The applicant alleged a ₹50 Crore scam involving siphoning of government funds, specifically an excess payment of ₹65 lakh to an agency via forged tender orders.

The complaint was primarily based on information received through an anonymous letter and RTI inquiries.

The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the complaint at the stage of preliminary hearing.

The applicant subsequently moved the High Court in revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the CrPC.

1. Whether the learned Sessions Judge committed a palpable error in dismissing the private complaint at the preliminary stage.

2. Whether a criminal complaint for corruption against public servants can be maintained without prior sanction/permission under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

3. Whether the allegations in the complaint met the statutory requirements of the PC Act and the IPC, particularly regarding repealed provisions.

Section 397 and Section 401 of the CrPC regarding the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction, which is intended to correct patent defects or errors of jurisdiction rather than re-appreciate evidence.

Sections 161 to 165A of the IPC were repealed following the enactment of the PC Act.

Section 17A of the PC Act, which mandates prior permission from the government for conducting any inquiry or investigation into offenses alleged against a public servant relating to the discharge of official functions.

Principles from Anil Kumar Ors. v. M.K. Aiyappa Anr. regarding mandatory sanctions.

Principles from Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander Anr. and Malkeet Singh Gill vs. State of Chhatisgarh regarding the non-interference in findings of fact unless they are found to be totally perverse.

The court observed that the applicant lacked personal knowledge of the allegations, relying entirely on an anonymous letter as "gospel truth".

Legally, the court found the complaint fundamentally flawed as it sought prosecution under Sections 164 and 165 of the IPC, which have been repealed.

Regarding the PC Act allegations, the court noted an absence of evidence or specific claims regarding a demand for "undue advantage" or illegal gratification, which are essential for an offense under Sections 7, 8, 9, or 11.

The court reasoned that the alleged tender irregularities, even if true, were matters for departmental audits and institutional mechanisms rather than criminal complaints based on apprehension.

The court held that the bar under Section 17A of the PC Act was absolute; since no prior permission was sought to investigate the public servants for actions taken in their official capacity, the Sessions Judge's dismissal was legally sound.

The High Court concluded that there was no "palpable error" or "perversity" in the lower court's reasoning that would warrant the exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

The court held that the learned Sessions Judge committed no error in dismissing the complaint at the preliminary stage due to the mandatory requirement of Section 17A of the PC Act, the repeal of the relevant IPC sections, and the lack of prima facie evidence of criminal misconduct.

The court affirmed that revisional jurisdiction cannot be used to substitute the lower court's finding of fact unless it is found to be arbitrary or perverse.