The High Court of Karnataka has directed all the special courts dealing with corruption cases under the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act, 1988, not to entertain private complaints against public servants in the absence of production of approval, granted by the competent authorities to the complainants under Section 17A of the Act.
Apart from this, the complaints under the PC Act should contain narration, along with documentary evidence, that the complainant had earlier made efforts to register a complaint before the Karnataka Lokayukta police and no action was taken on such complaint.
Stating that the judges of the special courts should also examine whether the complainants have filed affidavits under the Oaths Act, 1969, reiterating the allegations made in the complaint, the High Court said that the private complainants can be entertained only if these three criteria are complied with.
Justice M. Nagaparasanna issued the directions while quashing a private complaint registered against Ashok V., a district officer of the Backward Classes Welfare Department, Chickballapur, who had questioned the legality of investigation ordered against him based on a private complaint.
The High Court pointed out that Section 17A, included in the Act in 2018, imposes a condition that no police officer can conduct any enquiry, inquiry or investigation into any alleged offences under the PC Act against public servants without the previous approval of the competent authority, except in certain instances.
The creation of protection for public servants under Section 17A against vexatious and frivolous prosecution and complainants would be denied to them if the special courts order an investigation against them, based on the private complaints, as the investigating agency is bound to register FIRs on the court’s direction and investigate the cases sans prior approval from the competent authority, the High Court said.
The protective filter provided against vexatious and frivolous prosecution by the Parliament by amending the Act in 2018 would be ‘rendered illusory’ when the complainants select an alternative route of knocking the doors of the special courts directly without approaching the investigating agency like the Lokayukta police, Justice Nagaprassanna said, while pointing out that the High Court has come across several cases where the complaints were lodged directly with the special courts.
“Protection given under Section 17A must be observed with complete strictness bearing in mind public interest, failing which many a time it would result in a vexatious prosecution. This cannot however, be considered as a protective shield for the guilty, but a safeguard for the innocent. Therefore, its observance becomes mandatory,” the High Court observed.
