Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act of 1988.

Why in News ? The Karnataka Governor Thaawarchand Gehlot has recently  delivered a jolt to Chief Minister Siddaramaiah by sanctioning a prosecution over corruption charges in the allotment of plots at Mysuru.

The sanction was given under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act of 1988.

Key Provisions of Section 17A:

• Sanction Required for Prosecution: Section 17A mandates that no public servant can be prosecuted for any offense under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, unless the sanction is granted by the government or competent authority. This sanction must be obtained before any legal proceedings are initiated.
• Exception for Certain Offenses: The section does not apply to offenses committed under the Prevention of Corruption Act that involve allegations of bribe-taking or similar misconduct. These exceptions allow for direct prosecution without prior sanction in certain cases.

Recent Cases:

1. Nageshwar Rao v. CBI (2020):

Facts: This case dealt with the interpretation of Section 17A and its applicability in terms of the requirement of prior sanction for prosecution.

Outcome: The Supreme Court clarified that the provision of Section 17A must be strictly followed, emphasizing that prosecution cannot proceed without the required sanction. The Court underscored the importance of adhering to procedural safeguards provided by the Act.

M.S. Dhoni v. CBI (2021):

Facts: In this case, Section 17A was examined concerning the applicability of prior sanction in cases where public servants are alleged to have committed corruption-related offenses.

Outcome: The Court ruled in favor of strictly adhering to the sanction requirement, reinforcing the provision’s role in protecting public servants from unwarranted legal action.

 Central Bureau of Investigation v. K. Krishna Kumari (2022):

Facts: This case involved the challenge of prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act without obtaining prior sanction as required by Section 17A.

Outcome: The Court held that the prosecution was invalid without the requisite sanction and highlighted the procedural necessity to uphold Section 17A’s safeguards.