Granting approval to conduct investigation against public servants under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, which came into force in 2018, ‘cannot be a frolicsome act’, said the High Court of Karnataka.
“Section 17A is clearly a filter that the prosecution must pass in order to discourage or avoid vexatious prosecution, though cannot be considered as a protective shield for the guilty, but a safeguard for the innocent,” the court said.
Justice M. Nagaprasamma made these observations while setting aside the permission granted on April 21, 2022 by the State government to the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) to conduct a probe against Shreeroopa, a KAS officer, who was posted to the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) as Deputy Secretary-2 during 2009.
The court set aside the permission as well as the FIR registered against her while pointing out that the permission does not even bear any semblance of application of mind as it merely states that ‘on thorough examination’ without assigning any reason.
“In my considered view, Section 17A and its purport 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 malicious prosecution,” observed Justice Nagaprasanna.
The court pointed out that as the Section 17A makes it clear that ‘no officer shall conduct any enquiry or inquiry or investigation without previous approval...’ the act casts an obligation of application of mind upon the authority to consider whether approval is sought for an enquiry, inquiry or an investigation.
Observing that “recording of reasons in an order is the only way that one can construe such application of mind”, the court said that “reasons are live links between the mind of the decision-taker, to the controversy in question and the decision arrived at.”
Ms. Shreeroopa had questioned the legality of permission granted by the government on April 21, 2022 to conduct investigation on a complaint filed by one M. Narayanaswamy in 2021 alleging fraud in registration of a sale deed of a BDA site in favour of a Scheduled Caste women in June 2009.
The government had sought BDA Commissioner’s opinion on the request of ACB to conduct probe against Mr. Shreeroopa, who had executed the sale deed in 2009.
However, the BDA Commissioner had unequivocally declined permission pointing out that BDA had passed a resolution in 2008 to allot sites to 46 persons belonging to SC community as per a Government Order. And the petitioner, after being posted to BDA subsequently, had only executed the sale deed in terms of the authority’s resolution.
Meanwhile, the court gave liberty to the government to consider ACB’s request afresh, if necessary.
