The Supreme Court of India has dismissed a police constable’s appeal challenging criminal proceedings over an alleged demand for a bribe of ₹1.5 lakh. The Court held that Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which requires prior approval for certain investigations involving public servants, does not protect alleged bribery unrelated to official decisions or recommendations.
A Bench of Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice N.V. Anjaria delivered the judgment on October 16, 2026, upholding the Rajasthan High Court’s decision to allow the trial to proceed.
Background
Tejram, a constable posted at the office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police in Sirohi, Rajasthan, faced allegations that he demanded ₹1.5 lakh as a bribe on behalf of the Superintendent of Police.
The complaint was submitted by another constable, Devendra Kumar, in April 2021. An FIR was registered in June 2021. Following the grant of prosecution sanction in December 2023, a chargesheet was filed, and the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Pali, framed a charge under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act on September 12, 2024.
Tejram challenged the order before the Rajasthan High Court, but his revision petition was dismissed on March 26, 2025. He then approached the Supreme Court, arguing that the investigation could not have been initiated without prior approval under Section 17A.
The Supreme Court examined whether the alleged demand for illegal gratification was connected with any official decision or recommendation made by the appellant in the discharge of his duties.
The Bench explained that Section 17A does not provide blanket protection to public servants against investigation. Its application depends on whether the alleged offence is connected to a recommendation or decision made while performing official functions.
The Court observed:
“The decisive phrase in the section is ‘discharge his official functions or duties’. Though the legislature has intended to protect the public servant from being prosecuted by engrafting Section 17A in the statute book, the protection envisaged could be extended only if the conditions contemplated in the Section are satisfied. The Section cannot be viewed to have an omnibus application.”
The Bench further clarified that an allegation of demanding a bribe, when unconnected with an official decision or recommendation, does not attract the protection under Section 17A.
It also relied on earlier Supreme Court rulings, including Central Bureau of Investigation v. Santosh Karnani and Anil Daima v. State of Rajasthan, which addressed the scope of the provision.
On the separate question of prosecution sanction under Section 19, the Court held that the sanction had been obtained before cognizance was taken. Any irregularity in that regard did not invalidate the entire proceedings.
The Supreme Court found no reason to interfere with the Rajasthan High Court's order. It held that the absence of prior approval under Section 17A had not invalidated the criminal proceedings against Tejram.
The appeal was accordingly dismissed, allowing the trial to proceed on its merits.
Case Details
- Case Title: Tejram v. State of Rajasthan
- Case Number: Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 11709 of 2025
- Judges: Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice N.V. Anjaria
- Decision Date: October 16, 2026
