2019 (11) TMI 1134 - HC - Customs

Proceedings against the officers for seeking bribe - Requirement of approval of competent authority before commencement of enquiry - non-adherence to Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 - Proviso to Section 17A of the PC Act - there is prima facie material relating to demand of a sum of Rs.ten lakhs through electronic evidence like video graphy. - HELD THAT - In view of the video graphy evidence relating to demand, Section 17A of PC Act is required to be taken into consideration that where the charge is of attempting or accepting any undue personal advantage for himself or for any other person. In such an event, Section 17A of the PC Act relating to obtaining prior approval of the competent Authority before initiating any proceeding against public servant may not require. Therefore, petitioners contention that there is non-compliance of Section 17A of PC Act is not tenable having regard to the fact that there is prima facie material evidence relating to demand of bribe of Rs.ten lakhs - Hence, question of obtaining prior approval under Section 17A of the PC Act is not warranted in view of first proviso. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
- Validity of FIR filed against Customs Department officials for alleged demand of bribe
- Compliance with Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 before initiating the FIR

Analysis:
1. The petitioners, officials of the Customs Department, sought relief by challenging the FIR filed against them for alleged demand of bribe to release imported goods. The complaint included video evidence authenticated by the Director General of Vigilance - Customs, Hyderabad, based on advice from the Central Vigilance Commission.

2. The main contention raised was the validity of the FIR under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which requires prior approval before initiating an enquiry or investigation against a public servant for acts related to their official duties. The respondents argued that the FIR was filed following a judicial pronouncement and that compliance with Section 17A was not necessary due to the nature of the allegations.

3. The court examined Section 17A of the PC Act, which mandates prior approval for investigating offences related to recommendations or decisions made by public servants in the course of their duties. However, the court observed that in cases involving the acceptance of undue advantage, as evidenced by the video recording of the bribe demand, the requirement for prior approval may not apply.

4. Referring to a Delhi High Court decision, the court emphasized that Section 17A aims to protect public servants acting in good faith and without personal motives. In cases where a public servant's actions are criminal or constitute an offence, prior approval may not be necessary. The court concluded that the petitioners failed to establish a case to challenge the FIR based on the provisions of Section 17A and the Delhi High Court ruling.

5. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petitions, vacated any interim protection granted earlier, and clarified that its observations did not determine the merits of the case. The judgment highlighted the importance of interpreting Section 17A in line with the legislative intent to safeguard public servants acting in the discharge of their official duties.