![Section 17-A PC Act Inapplicable to Bribe Demand, State ACB Can Prosecute Central Government Employee: Supreme Court in Anil Daima v. State of Rajasthan [2026 INSC 72]](/assets/images/article-criminal.svg)
Quick Answer: Section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which requires prior approval before investigating offences relatable to a public servant's recommendations or decisions in discharge of official duties, cannot be applied to cases of demand of illegal gratification. The Supreme Court also approved the Rajasthan High Court's view that the State Anti-Corruption Bureau can register and investigate a corruption case against a Central Government employee, and dismissed the special leave petitions.
In Anil Daima etc. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (2026 INSC 72), the Supreme Court held that the Rajasthan High Court took the correct view that the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) of the State of Rajasthan has jurisdiction to register a criminal case under the Prevention of Corruption Act against an employee of the Central Government, and that it is incorrect to say that only the CBI could have instituted the prosecution (para 3). Rejecting a plea for the benefit of Section 17-A, the Court held that the provision, by any stretch of imagination, cannot be applied to cases of demand of illegal gratification under Sections 7 and 7A (paras 4–8). A Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma dismissed the special leave petitions (para 9).
Status: Special Leave Petitions dismissed; Rajasthan High Court's common judgment dated 3.10.2025 in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 450 and 451 of 2025 stands; pending applications disposed of (paras 1, 9–10).
Headnote: Section 17-A PC Act and Demand of Illegal Gratification
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Sections 7, 7A and 17-A – Prior approval for enquiry, inquiry or investigation – Offences relatable to recommendations made or decisions taken in discharge of official functions – Demand of illegal gratification – Jurisdiction of State Anti-Corruption Bureau over Central Government employees – Consent of CBI.
Held: (i) The ACB of the State of Rajasthan has jurisdiction to register a criminal case under the Prevention of Corruption Act even though the accused is an employee of the Central Government; the High Court rightly held that it is incorrect to say that only the CBI could have instituted the prosecution (paras 2–3).
(ii) The High Court answered both questions, on the ACB's jurisdiction to register and investigate and on the validity of a charge-sheet filed without CBI approval or consent, against the petitioners, and the Supreme Court found its view correct (paras 2–3).
(iii) The petitioners are sought to be prosecuted for offences punishable under Sections 7 and 7A of the Act, 1988, and the case is one of demand of illegal gratification (paras 5–6).
(iv) Section 17-A was enacted with a particular object and deals with enquiry, inquiry or investigation of offences relatable to recommendations made or decisions taken by a public servant in discharge of official functions or duties (paras 6–7).
(v) Section 17-A, by any stretch of imagination, cannot be applied to cases of demand of illegal gratification; the submission seeking its benefit was thoroughly misconceived and rejected at the threshold (paras 7–8).
(vi) The special leave petitions were accordingly dismissed (para 9).
(paras 2–10)
Case Details: Anil Daima v. State of Rajasthan (2026 INSC 72)
Final Outcome: Special Leave Petitions dismissed; High Court's common judgment upholding the State ACB's jurisdiction affirmed; plea under Section 17-A rejected.
Case: Anil Daima etc. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 72
Case No.: Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos. 1010–1011 of 2026
Court: Supreme Court of India (Extraordinary Criminal Jurisdiction) – Reportable
Date of Decision: 19 January 2026
Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma (Order; no named author)
Relevant Acts & Sections: Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Sections 7, 7A and 17-A
Impugned Order: Common judgment and order dated 3.10.2025 of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur, disposing of Criminal Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 450 and 451 of 2025 (para 1)
Source: Supreme Court of India
Key Holdings of the Supreme Court
- The State ACB of Rajasthan can register a criminal case under the Prevention of Corruption Act against a Central Government employee; the prosecution need not be instituted only by the CBI (para 3).
- The High Court's answers to both questions of law, decided against the petitioners, reflect the correct view (paras 2–3).
- Section 17-A protects against enquiry, inquiry or investigation only for offences relatable to recommendations made or decisions taken by a public servant in discharge of official functions or duties (paras 6–7).
- Section 17-A cannot by any stretch of imagination be applied to cases of demand of illegal gratification (para 7).
Brief Facts of the Case
The petitioners are sought to be prosecuted for offences punishable under Sections 7 and 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in a case of demand of illegal gratification registered by the ACB of the State of Rajasthan, the accused being an employee of the Central Government (paras 3, 5–6).
They filed Criminal Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 450 and 451 of 2025 before the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur. The High Court framed two questions: whether the State ACB has jurisdiction to register a case, investigate and file a charge-sheet against a Central Government employee for an offence committed in Rajasthan, or whether jurisdiction lies exclusively with the CBI; and whether a charge-sheet filed without the approval or consent of the CBI is valid. By its common judgment dated 3.10.2025, the High Court answered both questions against the petitioners (paras 1–3).
Before the Supreme Court, counsel for the petitioners sought to persuade the Court to give them the benefit of Section 17-A of the Act, 1988 (para 4).
Issues Before the Supreme Court
- Whether the State ACB has jurisdiction to register and prosecute a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act against a Central Government employee, without CBI approval or consent (paras 2–3).
- Whether the petitioners, accused of demanding illegal gratification under Sections 7 and 7A, are entitled to the benefit of Section 17-A of the Act, 1988 (paras 4–7).
Court's Findings and Reasoning
Jurisdiction of the State ACB (paras 2–3): The Court noted that the High Court, after considering the law, decisions of the Supreme Court and the statutory provisions, recorded a categorical finding that the ACB of Rajasthan has jurisdiction to register the criminal case despite the accused being a Central Government employee. The Court held that the High Court took the correct view that it is incorrect to say that only the CBI could have instituted the prosecution.
Nature of the charge (paras 5–6): The Court clarified at the outset that the petitioners are sought to be prosecuted under Sections 7 and 7A of the Act, 1988, and that this is a case of demand of illegal gratification. It reproduced Section 17-A, including its provisos on arrest on the spot and the time limit for the authority's decision.
Scope of Section 17-A (paras 7–8): Describing the submission as thoroughly misconceived, the Court held that Section 17-A was enacted with a particular object and speaks of enquiry, inquiry or investigation of offences relatable to recommendations made or decisions taken by a public servant in discharge of official functions or duties. It cannot by any stretch of imagination be applied to cases of demand of illegal gratification, and the submission was rejected at the threshold.
Final Outcome and Directions
- Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos. 1010–1011 of 2026 dismissed (para 9).
- The plea for the benefit of Section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 rejected at the threshold (para 8).
- Pending application(s), if any, disposed of (para 10).
Legal Principle Laid Down
Section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 applies only to enquiry, inquiry or investigation of offences relatable to recommendations made or decisions taken by a public servant in discharge of official functions or duties; it cannot be applied to cases of demand of illegal gratification under Sections 7 and 7A. A State Anti-Corruption Bureau has jurisdiction to register a case under the Act against a Central Government employee, and the prosecution need not be instituted only by the CBI (paras 3, 7).
Precedents Relied Upon
- No specific precedent is named in the order. The Court noted that the High Court had reached its finding after a review of various decisions of the Supreme Court and the provisions of law (para 3).
Important Paragraphs of the Judgment
Verbatim extracts from the judgment. For the full text, refer to the judgment PDF below.
Para 3: "The High Court has taken the correct view while saying that it is incorrect to say that it is only the CBI who could have instituted the prosecution."
Para 5: "At the outset, we must clarify that the petitioners before us are sought to be prosecuted for the offence punishable under Sections 7 and 7A respectively, of the Act, 1988."
Para 6: "This is a case of demand of illegal gratification."
Para 7: "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."
Para 7: "Section 17-A by any stretch of imagination cannot be applied to cases of demand of illegal gratification."
Para 8: "We have no hesitation in rejecting such submission at the threshold."
Practical Impact of the Ruling
- For accused public servants: In bribery cases under Sections 7 and 7A, the absence of prior approval under Section 17-A is not a ground to challenge the investigation (paras 5–7).
- For State anti-corruption agencies: The ACB can register and investigate cases against Central Government employees serving within the State without the case having to be instituted by the CBI (para 3).
- For trial courts and High Courts: A plea under Section 17-A in a case of demand of illegal gratification can be rejected at the threshold (paras 7–8).
FAQs on Section 17-A PC Act in Bribery Cases
1. What did the Supreme Court decide in Anil Daima v. State of Rajasthan?
It dismissed the special leave petitions, approving the High Court's view on the State ACB's jurisdiction and rejecting the plea for the benefit of Section 17-A (paras 3, 8–9).
2. Does Section 17-A apply to a case of demand of bribe?
No. The Court held that Section 17-A, by any stretch of imagination, cannot be applied to cases of demand of illegal gratification (para 7).
3. What does Section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act cover?
It covers enquiry, inquiry or investigation of offences relatable to recommendations made or decisions taken by a public servant in discharge of official functions or duties, requiring previous approval of the specified government or authority (paras 6–7).
4. Can a State ACB prosecute a Central Government employee?
Yes. The Court held that the High Court correctly found that the ACB of Rajasthan has jurisdiction to register the case, and that it is not only the CBI who could have instituted the prosecution (para 3).
5. Under which offences were the petitioners being prosecuted?
Under Sections 7 and 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (para 5).
Keywords: 2026 INSC 72, Anil Daima v. State of Rajasthan, Section 17-A Prevention of Corruption Act, prior approval, demand of illegal gratification, Section 7 PC Act, Section 7A PC Act, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Central Government employee, CBI consent, Rajasthan High Court, Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, Supreme Court judgment
Related on LegalTaxGuru
Download Judgment PDF – Anil Daima v. State of Rajasthan
Judgment PDF: 2026 INSC 72 – Anil Daima etc. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (SLP (Crl.) Nos. 1010–1011 of 2026) – Download Judgment PDF
Source: Supreme Court of India (official website).