2019 (11) TMI 1134 - HC - Customs

Court upholds FIR against Customs officials, no Section 17A compliance needed. Video evidence key.

Sri D Anil, s/o late S Dorairaju, Sri Sujit Kumar P Sompur Versus The Superintendent of Police Central Bureau of Investigation-ACB And Others

Sri D Anil, s/o late S Dorairaju, Sri Sujit Kumar P Sompur Versus The Superintendent of Police Central Bureau of Investigation-ACB And Others - 2020 (371) ... 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 FIRAnalysis: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.