LI Network
Published on: November 07, 2023 at 19:02 IST
The Karnataka High Court has ruled on the application of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The court’s decision, delivered by Justice M Nagaprasanna, distinguishes between two scenarios involving public servants and their interaction with money.
Also Read: Supreme Court: Section 17A of Prevention of Corruption Act not Retrospective in nature
The court allowed the petitions filed by officials of the Commercial Tax Department, quashing proceedings initiated against them by the Karnataka Lokayukta based on sting operations conducted by media houses. However, it did not annul proceedings against traffic police personnel who accepted money in exchange for allowing heavy vehicles into restricted areas during prohibited hours.
The distinction in the court’s ruling lies in the interpretation of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act. In the case of officers from the Commercial Tax department, the sting operation showed that money was thrust into their hands, not demanded. This situation, as per the court, falls under the protection provided by Section 17A, requiring prior approval for prosecution. It does not meet the requirements laid down under Section 7 of the Act, which necessitate both demand and acceptance of a bribe.
On the other hand, for traffic police officers who accepted bribes for allowing violations of traffic rules, the court found that there was a deemed demand and acceptance of bribes. The sting operation captured officers accepting money for permitting violations, and this, the court held, is akin to a trap or even a more severe offense. Therefore, the protection under Section 17A would not apply in cases where public servants accept money for permitting traffic violations.
The Karnataka Lokayukta had initiated proceedings against these officials based on sting operations carried out by various media houses between June 10, 2022, and June 27, 2022. The petitioners challenged the registration of offenses against them, arguing that the registration was illegal as it did not comply with Section 17A of the Act.
The court upheld the validity of sting operations, emphasizing that they should be conducted within the bounds of the law. It reaffirmed that Section 17A serves the purpose of protecting public servants from malicious prosecution, but if wrongdoing by a public servant is revealed with an element of dishonesty, they can be prosecuted with the approval of the Competent Authority.
The court’s ruling highlights the importance of strict adherence to Section 17A while considering the public interest and the protection available to officers against whom allegations are made. This section acts as a filter to prevent vexatious prosecution.
In conclusion, the Karnataka High Court’s judgment emphasizes the need for clarity in distinguishing cases that require prior approval under Section 17A and those that do not. It also underscores the importance of addressing corruption involving traffic police officers, given the adverse effects on public safety and the economy. The court has urged authorities to take swift action against such corrupt practices.
This judgment has far-reaching implications for cases involving public servants and bribery, particularly in situations where the demand and acceptance of money are in question.
