Lalu Prasad Yadav v. Central Bureau Of Investigation - Criminal Petition

## Unlock Advanced Research with PRISM AI

• Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc -... Upgrade to Premium [Cites 31, Cited by 0 ] ### Delhi High Court

Lalu Prasad Yadav vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 24 March, 2026

• IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on: 19th January, 2026 Pronounced on: 24th March, 2026 + W.P.(CRL) 1845/2025 LALU PRASAD YADAV .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Kapil Sibal, Mr. Maninder Singh, Senior Advocates with Mr. Varun Jain, Mr. Navin Kumar, Mr. Sumit Singh, Ms. Aekta Vats, Ms. Aparajita Jamwal, Ms. Janvi Narang and Mr. Satish Kumar, Advocates. versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION .....Respondent Through: Mr. S.V. Raju, ASG with Mr. D.P. Singh, ASG and SPP with Mr. Manu Mishra, Ms. Garima Saxena, Mr. Imaan Khera, Ms. Shreya Dutt, Mr. Samrat Goswami, Mr. Hitarth Raja, Ms. Aditi Andley, Advocates with Insp. Ramendra Diiman. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA JUDGMENT RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.

1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ["Cr. PC"] for quashing of FIR No. RC2202022E0007 under sections 120- B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [" IPC "] read with Sections 11, 12, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 "PC W.P.(CRL) 1845/2025 Page 1 of 23 Signature Not Verified Signed By:VAISHALI PRUTHI Signing Date:24.03.2026 17:38 Act" or "the Act" dated 18.05.2022 and charge sheets dated 07.10.2022, 01.07.2023 and 07.06.2024, filed in FIR/RC and also the quashing of the cognizance orders dated 27.02.2023, 22.09.2023 and 25.02.2025 along with consequential orders passed by learned Special Judge (PC Act). Brief facts of the case:

1.   A preliminary enquiry (PE No. 220/2021/E0002) was registered
   

   by CBI, EOU-IV, New Delhi on 23.09.2021 concerning alleged
   irregular appointments of Substitutes in Group-D posts in various
   Zonal Railways during the period 2004-2009. It was alleged that
   unknown public servants of the Indian Railways appointed and later
   regularized substitutes without adhering to the prescribed guidelines,
   without issuing any advertisement or public notice, and by showing
   undue haste in processing applications. Several appointees, though
   residents of Patna, Bihar, were appointed in distant Railway Zones
   such as Mumbai, Jabalpur, Kolkata, Jaipur and Hajipur, with
   applications that were improperly addressed yet processed and
   approved within a few days.

2.   The enquiry revealed seven specific instances where land
   

   situated in Patna was transferred by the appointees or their family
   members to the family members of the petitioner, then Union Minister
   for Railways, or to M/s AK Infosystems Pvt. Ltd., a company later
   controlled by his family. These transactions included five sale deeds
   and two subsequent gift deeds in favour of Smt. Rabri Devi, Smt.
   Misha Bharti and Smt. Hema Yadav, daughters and wife of the W.P.(CRL) 1845/2025 Page 2 of 23 Signature Not Verified Signed By:VAISHALI PRUTHI Signing Date:24.03.2026 17:38 petitioner. In consideration of these transfers, twelve individuals or
   their relatives were allegedly appointed as substitutes in six different
   Railway Zones. The enquiry noted that the lands were purchased at
   prices significantly below prevailing circle rates, often shown as paid
   in cash, and later gifted at substantially higher values.

3.   In total, about 1,05,292 sq. ft. of land, presently valued at
   

   approximately Rs. 4.39 crore as per current circle rates, was allegedly
   acquired by the family members of the petitioner through these
   transactions. The enquiry prima facie indicated abuse of official
   position by the petitioner to obtain pecuniary advantage for his family
   in exchange for railway appointments, with the beneficiaries of
   appointments also acting as participants in the alleged offence.
   Accordingly, FIR No. RC2202022E0007 was filed at Police Station
   EO-II Delhi. Subsequently, chargesheet was filed under Sections 120-
   B of IPC read with Sections 11, 12, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the PC Act,
   1988 (pre-2018 amendment), against the petitioner, his family
   members, the appointees, railway officials and other private
   individuals.

Submissions on Behalf of the Petitioner:

1.   Mr. Kapil Sibal learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner,
   

   submitted that the Petitioner has been subjected to grave persecution
   and prolonged harassment on account of a wholly mala fide and
   vexatious investigation. The alleged offences pertain to the period
   between 2004 and 2009, whereas the impugned RC/FIR dated
   18.05.2022 came to be registered after an unexplained delay of nearly W.P.(CRL) 1845/2025 Page 3 of 23 Signature Not Verified Signed By:VAISHALI PRUTHI Signing Date:24.03.2026 17:38 fourteen years. It was urged that for the very same allegations, the CBI
   through its various zones had earlier conducted investigations between
   2009 and 2014 by registering PEs and RCs, which culminated in
   closure reports that were accepted by the competent courts by separate
   judicial orders.

2.   It was further submitted that despite the aforesaid earlier
   

   investigations, the Respondent-CBI initiated a fresh preliminary
   enquiry on 23.09.2021 by concealing the existence of its previous
   enquiries. After conducting the said preliminary enquiry for nearly
   eight months, the CBI registered the present regular case bearing RC
   No. RC2202022E0007 on 18.05.2022. According to learned senior
   counsel, the very initiation of the preliminary enquiry and the
   subsequent registration of the FIR are vitiated on account of
   suppression of material facts and constitute a clear abuse of the
   investigative process.

3.   Mr. Sibal, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the instant
   

   RC/FIR was registered under Sections 120B IPC read with Sections
   11, 12 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, 1988 (as it
   stood prior to the 2018 amendment), without obtaining prior sanction
   as mandatorily required under Section 17A of the PC Act, 1988, as
   amended on 26.07.2018. It was contended that in the absence of such
   sanction, the initiation of the preliminary enquiry, investigation, and
   all consequential proceedings are non est in the eyes of law.

4.   It was pointed out that the CBI itself admits that sanction under [Section 17A](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/155945925/) is necessary for enquiry or investigation in respect of acts W.P.(CRL) 1845/2025                                             Page 4 of 23 Signature Not Verified Signed By:VAISHALI PRUTHI Signing Date:24.03.2026 17:38 performed by public servants in discharge of official functions. It was
   

   further submitted that during the course of investigation, the CBI
   obtained sanction under Section 17A against other accused persons,
   yet no such sanction was either sought or granted qua the Petitioner.
   On the contrary, the CBI has taken a plea that Section 17A was not
   attracted as the alleged acts were not in discharge of official duty,
   while simultaneously obtaining sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C.
   against the Petitioner on 01.09.2023, thereby acknowledging that the
   alleged acts were performed in official capacity.

1.   Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the entire case of the
                     prosecution proceeds on the allegation that the Petitioner, by virtue of
                     his position as the then Minister of Railways, had issued oral
                     instructions to the General Managers of various Railway Zones for
                     appointment of substitutes in Group-D posts. The preliminary enquiry
                     report, FIR, charge-sheets and even the cognizance orders record that
                     such instructions were allegedly issued by the Petitioner in his official
                     position. It was emphasized that it is not the prosecution case that the
                     Petitioner lacked authority or acted dehors his office. Even assuming
                     the allegations to be correct on their face, the acts complained of were
                     integrally connected with the official functions of the Petitioner as a
                     public servant and therefore squarely attract the protection of [Section
                     17A](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/155945925/) of the PC Act and prior approvals should have been taken before
                     enquiry/inquiry.
   

2.  Reliance was placed upon the judgments of coordinate Benches
                     of this Court in Naresh Kumar Mittal & Ors. v. CBIW.P.(Crl.) W.P.(CRL) 1845/2025                                          Page 5 of 23 Signature Not Verified Signed By:VAISHALI PRUTHI Signing Date:24.03.2026 17:38 2365/2023, affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated
                     01.03.2024,           and [Lambodar   Prasad   Padhy   v.   CBI W.P.(Crl](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/6480575/).)
                     3270/2023, wherein it has been categorically held that prior sanction
                     under [Section 17A](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/155945925/) of the PC Act is mandatory for registration of FIR. It was further submitted that the reliance placed by the CBI on [Fertico
                     Marketing & Investment Pvt. Ltd. v. CBI](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/36477306/) (2021) 2 SCC 525 is
                     misconceived, as the concept of "consent" under [Section 6](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1868602/) of the
                     DSPE Act cannot be equated with "sanction" under [Section 17A](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/155945925/) of
                     the PC Act. Reliance was placed upon [Shashi Kumar Shivanna v.
                     Governement of Karnataka](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/110994438/) rep by Home Secretary and ors. (2020)
                     SCC OnLine Kar 5018. In view thereof, it was urged that the entire
                     enquiry and investigation initiated against the Petitioner being without
                     mandatory prior sanction are non est and liable to be quashed.
                     Submissions on Behalf of the Respondent/CBI:
   

1. Mr. S.V. Raju, learned ASG appearing for the Respondent/CBI submitted that the present petition suffers from gross delay and laches. It was submitted that the Petitioner was fully aware of the proceedings since inception, including the registration of the PE 220 2021 E0002 on 23.09.2021, FIR dated 18.05.2022, issuance of notices, filing of multiple charge-sheets, grant of sanctions, and successive orders of cognizance passed by the learned Special Judge. The Petitioner actively participated in the investigation, joined proceedings pursuant to notice dated 07.03.2023, received relied upon documents, sought inspection of unrelied records, and availed remedies under Section 207 CrPC. Despite such participation, the present petition was filed only W.P.(CRL) 1845/2025 Page 6 of 23 Signature Not Verified Signed By:VAISHALI PRUTHI Signing Date:24.03.2026 17:38 after more than two years of proceedings, and at the stage when the matter had proceeded to framing of charge, rendering the petition liable to dismissal on the ground of delay and laches.Reliance was placed upon Pradeep S. Wodeyar v. State of Karnataka, (2021) 19 SCC 62, Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India W.P. (Civil) 699/2016 and Court on its Own Motion v. Union of India W.P. (Crl) 1542 of 2020 in support of such submission.

1.  It was further submitted that cognizance of offences has already
                     been taken by the learned Special Judge in respect of the first, second,
                     supplementary and final charge-sheets, and process has been duly
                     issued. The statutory remedy available to the Petitioner against such
                     orders was by way of revision within the prescribed period of
                     limitation of ninety days. Having failed to avail the said remedy, the
                     Petitioner cannot invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court to
                     overcome statutory limitation or to stall the progress of trial. It was
                     contended that once cognizance stands taken, interference under [Article 226](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1712542/) or [Section 482](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1679850/) CrPC ought not to be exercised,
                     particularly when no jurisdictional error is demonstrated. Reliance was
                     placed upon this Court's decision in Sanyam Bhushan v. State Crl
                     M.C. 1675 of 2022.
   

2.  The learned ASG further submitted that [Section 17A](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/155945925/) of the
                     Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 does not apply retrospectively to
                     offences alleged to have been committed prior to the amendment of
                     2018. It was argued that [Section 17A](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/155945925/) creates substantive rights and
                     liabilities and was consciously made prospective by the Legislature W.P.(CRL) 1845/2025                                           Page 7 of 23 Signature Not Verified Signed By:VAISHALI PRUTHI Signing Date:24.03.2026 17:38 with effect from 26.07.2018. Since the alleged offences pertain to a
                     period prior to the amendment, the investigation cannot be rendered
                     invalid on the ground of absence of approval under [Section 17A](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/155945925/). It
                     was contended that extending the protection retrospectively would
                     frustrate the very object of the [PC Act](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1331755/) and result in shielding corrupt
                     public servants, particularly where the prosecution also involves
                     serious offences under the [Indian Penal Code](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1569253/).
   

3.  It was further argued that [Section 17A](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/155945925/) does not have blanket
                     applicability and is attracted only when the alleged offence relates to
                     any recommendation made or decision taken by a public servant in
                     discharge of official functions. According to the Respondent, the
                     Petitioner was neither the recommending authority nor the decision-
                     making authority in the process of recruitment of Group-D substitutes
                     in the Railways. The appointments were made by the concerned
                     Railway officials, namely the General Managers and Chief Personnel
                     Officers, against whom permissions under [Section 17A](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/155945925/) of the Act
                     were duly obtained. No recruitment file was ever placed before the
                     Petitioner for approval, and therefore the alleged acts attributed to him
                     cannot be construed as recommendations or decisions contemplated
                     under [Section 17A](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/155945925/) of the Act. Reliance was placed upon the decision
                     Supreme Court in the case of [State of Rajasthan v. Tejmal
                     Chaudhary Crl](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/199003165/). A. 1647 of 2021.
   

4.  Learned ASG lastly submitted that even assuming any
                     procedural irregularity in investigation, the same would not vitiate
                     cognizance or subsequent proceedings unless failure of justice or W.P.(CRL) 1845/2025                                          Page 8 of 23 Signature Not Verified Signed By:VAISHALI PRUTHI Signing Date:24.03.2026 17:38 prejudice is demonstrated. It was contended that illegality in
                     investigation does not ipso facto nullify prosecution. It was also
                     emphasized that sanctions for prosecution under [Section 197](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/12704/) CrPC
                     and [Section 19](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/97670/) of the PC Act were duly obtained against the Petitioner
                     after application of mind, thereby eliminating any allegation of
                     prejudice. The reliance placed by the Petitioner on earlier verifications
                     or closure reports was stated to be misleading, as no prior
                     investigation had ever been conducted against him. Further reliance
                     was placed upon Hon'ble Supreme Court's decisions in [H.N. Rishbud
                     v. State](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1361495/) ([1954) 2 SCC 934, Fertico Marketing v. CBI](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/36477306/) (2021) 2 SCC
                     525 and CBI v. Narayan Niryat India Pvt. Ltd.Crl. Appeal. 4390 of
                     2025 It was therefore submitted that the petition is devoid of merit and
                     deserves dismissal.
   

Analysis and Conclusion:

1.  The Court has given careful consideration to the rival
   

   submissions and have perused the documents placed on record.

2.  The principal and, indeed, the sole ground urged by the
   

   Petitioner for quashing of the impugned FIR, charge-sheets and
   cognizance orders is the alleged non-compliance with Section 17A of
   the PC Act, 1988. According to the Petitioner, absence of prior
   approval before initiation of the preliminary enquiry and registration
   of the FIR renders the entire investigation non est in law. No
   independent challenge is laid to the factual foundation of the
   allegations or the existence of material collected during investigation.
   W.P.(CRL) 1845/2025 Page 9 of 23 Signature Not Verified Signed By:VAISHALI PRUTHI Signing Date:24.03.2026 17:38

3.  At the outset, this Court finds that [Section 17A](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/155945925/), introduced by
   

   Act 16 of 2018 with effect from 26.07.2018, does not evince either
   expressly or by necessary implication any legislative intent to operate
   retrospectively. The provision places a fetter on the initiation of
   enquiry or investigation against a public servant in respect of
   recommendations made or decisions taken in discharge of official
   functions. Such a restriction, which directly impacts the power of
   investigation, cannot be retrospectively applied unless the statute so
   mandates in clear terms.

4. In Tejmal Choudhary (supra), the Supreme Court
   unequivocally held that Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption
   Act, inserted with effect from 26.07.2018, is prospective in operation,
   being a provision that creates substantive rights and liabilities, and in
   the absence of any express or implied legislative intent of
   retrospectivity, cannot invalidate or nullify investigations or FIRs
   registered prior to its enforcement, as any such interpretation would
   defeat the object of anti-corruption law and render pending
   investigations infructuous. The relevant paragraphs read as under;

"4. The said FIR has been quashed mainly on the
ground that the Investigating Authorities had failed
to obtain previous approval of the State Government
under Section 17(A) of the PC Act before registering
the said FIR against the accused persons.

1. Section 17(A) of the PC Act, which is set out hereinafter for convenience, has been incorporated by amendment of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, with effect from 26th July, 2018. It reads as under: W.P.(CRL) 1845/2025 Page 10 of 23 Signature Not Verified Signed By:VAISHALI PRUTHI Signing Date:24.03.2026 17:38 "17A. Enquiry or Inquiry or investigation of offences relatable to recommendations made or decision taken by public servant in discharge of official functions or duties.--No police officer shall conduct any enquiry or inquiry or investigation into any offence alleged to have been committed by a public servant under this Act, where the alleged offence is relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken by such public servant in discharge of his official functions or duties, without the previous approval--

(a) in the case of a person who is or was employed,
at the time when the offence was alleged to have
been committed, in connection with the affairs of the
Union, of that Government;

(b) in the case of a person who is or was employed,
at the time when the offence was alleged to have
been committed, in connection with the affairs of a
State, of that Government;

(c) in the case of any other person, of the authority
competent to remove him from his office, at the time
when the offence was alleged to have been
committed:

Provided that no such approval shall be necessary
for cases involving arrest of a person on the spot on
the charge of accepting or attempting to accept any
undue advantage for himself or for any other
person:

Provided further that the concerned authority shall
convey its decision under this section within a
period of three months, which may, for reasons to be
recorded in writing by such authority, be extended
by a further period of one month."

1. In this case, the FIR was filed on 01.01.2018
   before the said provision came into force. The main
   question involved in these appeals is whether Section 17A of the PC Act would apply to an
   investigation which had commenced before Section
   17A was enacted/enforced.

2. It is a cardinal principle of construction that
   every statute is prospective, unless it is expressly or
   by necessary implication made to have
   retrospective operation. There is a presumption W.P.(CRL) 1845/2025 Page 11 of 23 Signature Not Verified Signed By:VAISHALI PRUTHI Signing Date:24.03.2026 17:38 against retrospectivity. An express provision should
   ordinarily be made to make a statute retrospective.
   The presumption against retrospectivity may also be
   rebutted by necessary implication as held by this
   Court in Akram Ansari v. Chief Election
   Officer reported in (2008) 2 SCC 95, which has been
   referred to and relied upon by the Kerala High
   Court in its judgment in K.R. Ramesh v. Central
   Bureau of Investigation reported in 2020 SCC
   OnLine Ker 2529. The device of a legal fiction can
   also be used to introduce retrospective operation.
   Generally, it is considered that every statute dealing
   with substantive rights is prima facie prospective
   unless it is expressly or by necessary implication
   made retrospective.

1. In T.N. Bettaswamaiah v. State of Karnataka being W.P. No. 29176/2019 (GM-RES), decided on 20.12.2019, which is reported reported in 2019 SCC OnLine Kar 3564, the Karnataka High Court referred to the judgment of this Court in Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra reported in (1994) 4 SCC 602, and rightly held:

"21. ... But in Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of
Maharashtra, (1994) 4 SCC 602 it is held that a
statute which not only changes the procedure but
also creates new rights and liabilities shall be
construed to be prospective in operation unless
otherwise provided either expressly or by necessary
implication. A careful reading of both Section 17A as also Section 19 do not contain any express
provision to show that they are retrospective in
nature nor it is so discernable by implication.

1. In Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Dr. Manmohan Singh, (2012) 3 SCC 64it is held that any anti- corruption law has to be interpreted in such a fashion as to strengthen fight against corruption and where two constructions are eminently reasonable, the Court has to accept the one that seeks to eradicate corruption than the one which seeks to perpetuate it."
2. Reference may also be made to the judgment of this Court in GJ Raja v. Tejraj Surana" reported W.P.(CRL) 1845/2025 Page 12 of 23 Signature Not Verified Signed By:VAISHALI PRUTHI Signing Date:24.03.2026 17:38 in (2019) 19 SCC 469, cited by Mr. Saurav Roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, where this Court followed the judgment of this Court in Hitendra Vishnu Thakur (supra) and held that a statute which affect substantive rights is presumed to be prospective in operation unless made retrospective and unless textually impossible a statute which merely affects procedure is presumed to be retrospective. However, a statute which not only changes the procedure but also creates new rights or liabilities is to be construed to be prospective in operation, unless otherwise provided either expressly or by necessary implication.

1. In State of Telangana v. Managipet alias
   MangipetSarveshwar Reddy reported (2019) 19 SCC
   87, this Court rejected the arguments that amended
   provisions of the PC Act would be applicable to an
   FIR, registered before the said amendment came
   into force and found that the High Court had rightly
   held that no grounds had made out for quashing the
   proceedings.

2. It is a well settled principle of interpretation that
   the legislative intent in the enactment of a statute is
   to be gathered from the express words used in the
   statue unless the plain words literally construed give
   rise to absurd results. This Court has to go by the
   plain words of the statute to construe the legislative
   intent, as very rightly argued by Mr. Roy. It could
   not possibly have been the intent of the legislature
   that all pending investigations upto July, 2018
   should be rendered infructuous. Such an
   interpretation could not possibly have been
   intended.

3. In his usual fairness, learned Senior Counsel
   appearing on behalf of the respondent does not
   seriously dispute the proposition of law that Section
   17A does not have retrospective operation. Learned
   Senior Counsel, however, argues that the Court
   might have looked into the merits and, in particular,
   the fact that investigation had ultimately been
   closed. We need not go into that aspect since the
   High Court has quashed the proceedings only on the W.P.(CRL) 1845/2025 Page 13 of 23 Signature Not Verified Signed By:VAISHALI PRUTHI Signing Date:24.03.2026 17:38 ground of permission not having been obtained
   under Section 17A of the PC Act.

4. The appeals are, accordingly, allowed and the
   impugned judgment and order is accordingly set
   aside."

5.  The Kerala High Court in [K.R. Ramesh v. CBI](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/165122069/), 2020 SCC
                     OnLine Ker 2529 authoritatively held that [Section 17A](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/155945925/) of the
                     Prevention of Corruption Act, inserted by the 2018 Amendment, is
                     purely prospective in operation, as it neither expressly nor impliedly
                     provides for retrospectivity, is intended only to protect honest officers
                     from vexatious harassment without diluting investigative powers, and
                     any contrary interpretation would unjustly invalidate investigations
                     and trials commenced prior to 26.07.2018, thereby defeating the very
                     object of the Act. The relevant paragraphs read as under;
   

"43. Yet another contention set up by the
petitioners was that in the light of section 17A of
the amended Act, the investigation followed by
prosecution without prior approval was non est
and liable to be quashed. As indicated above,
there is nothing in the statute to indicate that it
was retrospective. Section 17A prohibits any
enquiry or inquiry or investigation into any
offence, without the approval of the authorities
mentioned in section 17A alleged to have been
committed by a public servant under the Act,
where the alleged offence is relatable to any
recommendation made or decision taken by such
pubic servant in discharge of his official
functions or duties. The approval as
contemplated under the Act, is basically to
protect honest and upright officers and to
insulate them against unnecessary victimization
or harassment consequent to taking of
administrative decisions. It is also intended to W.P.(CRL) 1845/2025 Page 14 of 23 Signature Not Verified Signed By:VAISHALI PRUTHI Signing Date:24.03.2026 17:38 embolden upright and honest officers in taking
independent decision in public interest.

Essentially, the purpose of the Prevention of
Corruption Act is to eradicate corruption in
administration and to punish corrupt officers. It
also has to strengthen the vigilance wing of the
Government empowered to investigate
corruption in administrative set up. Hence no
provision of the Statute, can be interpreted to
dilute the object of the Act, and which may have
the effect of weakening the powers of
investigation agencies entrusted with such task.
If the Amendment is held to be retrospective,
several cases pending trial in which
investigation commenced prior to amendment
which are in the various stages of trial or
investigation will be prejudicially affected. All
those cases will be bad for absence of prior
approval under section 17A of the Amended Act.
Such an interpretation cannot be given in the
absence of any provision explicitly or impliedly
indicating retrospectivity.

1. Hence, the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act 2018 has to be held to be prospective and has no application to cases registered prior to amendment and pending under various stages of investigation and to cases in which investigation has been completed and are pending trial. This seems to be in consonance with the decisions in Syam Sunder's Case (supra) and other similar cases and the view expressed by this Court in M.C. Chandrasekaran Nair v. State of Kerala (2015 (4) KLJ 603), wherein the retrospective operation of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 came up for consideration. Similar view was expressed by a learned Single Judge of Madras High Court, in Crl. Appeal. No. 488 of 2018 wherein scope of application of Amendment Act 2018 came up for consideration. It was held to be not retrospective. Delhi High Court in Madhu Koda's W.P.(CRL) 1845/2025 Page 15 of 23 Signature Not Verified Signed By:VAISHALI PRUTHI Signing Date:24.03.2026 17:38 case (Supra) also, shared the same view. I agree with those views."
2. The argument that Section 17A is merely procedural and hence retrospective cannot be accepted. The provision confers a substantive immunity upon a class of public servants by putting the condition of the very initiation of enquiry or investigation upon prior executive approval. Such a safeguard materially alters the legal regime governing investigation and cannot be characterized as a mere matter of procedure. The Legislature, being conscious of this consequence, deliberately made the provision prospective.

1.  It is significant that the alleged offences pertain to the period
                     between 2004 and 2009, whereas [Section 17A](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/155945925/) was introduced only in
                     2018,       therefore,     the   alleged   acts   cannot    be   construed           as
                     recommendations or decisions taken by the petitioner in discharge of
                     official functions so as to attract the requirement of prior approval
                     under [Section 17A](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/155945925/) of the Act.
   

2.  The reliance placed by the Petitioner on decisions emphasising
                     the mandatory nature of [Section 17A](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/155945925/) is misplaced, as those judgments
                     operate in a distinct temporal context where the alleged offences were
                     post-2018 or where the protection was otherwise attracted. None of
                     the cited authorities lay down that [Section 17A](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/155945925/) applies retrospectively
                     to offences committed prior to its enforcement. On the contrary,
                     judicial discipline requires this Court to give effect to the settled
                     principle that statutes creating new protections or disabilities operate
                     prospectively unless expressly stated otherwise.
   

W.P.(CRL) 1845/2025 Page 16 of 23 Signature Not Verified Signed By:VAISHALI PRUTHI Signing Date:24.03.2026 17:38 24. Even otherwise, the scope of Section 17A is confined to acts
involving recommendations made or decisions taken by a public
servant in discharge of official functions. But in this case the petitioner
was not in the position to make decisions about the appointment, but
could only influence. The prosecution case, as placed before the
Court, attributes the formal acts of appointment to the competent
Railway authorities, against whom approvals under Section 17A were
admittedly obtained. Whether the Petitioner exercised de facto
influence or issued oral directions is a matter of evidence and cannot,
at this stage, be determinative of the applicability of Section 17A.

1. In this context, it is essential to refer to exact words applied by the statute, which reads as follows:-

"[17A. Enquiry or Inquiry or investigation of
offences relatable to recommendations made or
decision taken by public servant in discharge of
official functions or duties.--No police officer shall
conduct any enquiry or inquiry or investigation into
any offence alleged to have been committed by a
public servant under this Act, where the alleged
offence is relatable to any recommendation made or
decision taken by such public servant in discharge of
his official functions or duties, without the previous
approval-- (a) in the case of a person who is or was
employed, at the time when the offence was alleged
to have been committed, in connection with the
affairs of the Union, of that Government; (b) in the
case of a person who is or was employed, at the time
when the offence was alleged to have been
committed, in connection with the affairs of a State,
of that Government; (c) in the case of any other
person, of the authority competent to remove him
from his office, at the time when the offence was
alleged to have been committed: Provided that no W.P.(CRL) 1845/2025 Page 17 of 23 Signature Not Verified Signed By:VAISHALI PRUTHI Signing Date:24.03.2026 17:38 such approval shall be necessary for cases involving
arrest of a person on the spot on the charge of
accepting or attempting to accept any undue
advantage for himself or for any other person:

Provided further that the concerned authority shall
convey its decision under this section within a
period of three months, which may, for reasons to be
recorded in writing by such authority, be extended
by a further period of one month.]"
26. The crucial question that arises for consideration in these
proceedings is whether the previous approval from the competent
authority needs to be obtained for every enquiry, inquiry or
investigation, into every offences committed by the public servant.
The crux of the issue is thus as to whether provisions under Section
17-A of the PC Act is an omnibus, all pervasive pre-requisite for every
enquiry, inquiry or investigation into every act done by the public
servant in the discharge of its official duty. The object of PC Act is to
protect the honest and upright public officers and to ensure that they
are not unnecessarily dragged into litigation. The purpose is to ensure
that officers are protected against the motivated and mischievous
litigation. Such a protection enables the officers to take prompt and
bold decisions so that administrative work should not suffer.
Otherwise, public officials may become reluctant to take decisions,
apprehending false accusations of corruption. A close scrutiny of the
provisions contained in Section 17-A of the PC Act would reveal that
bar under Section 17-A of the Act operates against a police officer. It
prohibits a police officer from conducting any enquiry or inquiry or
investigation into any investigation, alleged to have been committed W.P.(CRL) 1845/2025 Page 18 of 23 Signature Not Verified Signed By:VAISHALI PRUTHI Signing Date:24.03.2026 17:38 by a public servant under the Act without the previous approval of the
prescribed authority. Such bar operates or applies only when the
offence allegedly committed by a public servant under the Act relates
to any recommendation made or decision taken by such public servant
in discharge of his official functions or duties. The requirement of Section 17-A for prior approval thus pre-supposes that the offence
under the Act, allegedly committed by the public servant is relatable
to any recommendation made or decision taken by him in discharge of
the official functions or duties. The bar under Section 17-A of the Act
does not apply to the investigation conducted into all or every offence
under the Act, allegedly committed by the public servant. When any
recommendation or decision is made by a public servant which is not
directly or reasonably connected with his official functions or duties,
he is not entitled to get protection under Section 17-A of the Act. The
protection envisaged in Section 17-A of the PC Act is not a blanket
protection and when the act of any public official is ex-facie criminal
or constitutes an offence, prior approval of the competent authority
would not be required.

1. The CBI charge sheet lists the following procedure in practice for engaging substitutes in Railways (including Central Railway) during the relevant period:-

"1. Applications addressed to General Manager
were received in GM's office from various sources.

1. These applications were scrutinized by Secy./ GM
   and segregated in terms of eligibility / ineligibility.

2. The eligible applications along with the
   requirement of substitutes received from DRMs / W.P.(CRL) 1845/2025 Page 19 of 23 Signature Not Verified Signed By:VAISHALI PRUTHI Signing Date:24.03.2026 17:38 Heads of Units, through the Chief Personnel Officer,
   was to be put up to General Manager.

3. Since the discretion lied personally with the
   General Manager, he/she would decide which of
   these applications would be processed. He/she
   would endorse on the applications accordingly.

4. The selected applications would be forwarded to
   the Personnel Department for verification of
   certificates etc.

5. After due verification, Personnel Department will
   put up the cases for General Manager's approval for
   engagement as substitutes.

6. Keeping in view the exigencies of service and
   suitability of the candidate, GM/CPO would decide
   the Department and Division/ Unit where the
   candidate was to be engaged.

7. Formal letter of engagement would be sent to the
   Division/Unit by the Personnel Department.

8. To avoid any fraud / impersonation etc., the
   Division/Unit would get the letter verified/
   authenticated from CPO's office and then issue
   engagement letter to the candidate, after completion
   of required formalities."

9.  The above-said procedure was reiterated vide Circular No. 24th
                     June 2009, issued by the Ministry of Railways, directing for strict
                     adherence to the same.
   

1. Also, the Ministry of Railways (Railway Board) in its subsequent Circulars on engagement of Substitutes repeatedly directed to exercise strict control to the number of Substitutes engaged and to make serious attempts to bring down their numbers drastically. It was also reiterated that the General Managers do not have unfettered discretion to engage Substitutes and that the discretion to engage Substitutes may be exercised with due caution.

W.P.(CRL) 1845/2025 Page 20 of 23 Signature Not Verified Signed By:VAISHALI PRUTHI Signing Date:24.03.2026 17:38 30. Para 2.1 of Suppl. Circular no. 01 dated 04th November, 1992 to
the Master Circular No. 20/91, stipulates that any new face substitute
should be appointed only with the prior personal approval of the
General Manager.

1.  In the present case, petitioner though serving as the Railway
                     Minister, was not the statutory or administrative authority empowered
                     to make or approve appointments of Group-D Substitutes in Railways,
                     as the process of such recruitment was handled by the competent
                     Railway functionaries with prior personal approval of the General
                     Manager. The prosecution case itself attributes the formal acts of
                     appointment to those competent functionaries and not to any decision
                     taken by the petitioner in the exercise of official power. The petitioner
                     was not in a position to make decisions about the appointment. The
                     prosecution case attributes formal acts of appointment to the railway
                     officials against whom provisions of [Section 17-A](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/155945925/) were admittedly
                     obtained. Consequently, the alleged acts cannot be construed as
                     recommendations or decisions taken by the petitioner in discharge of
                     official functions so as to attract the requirement of prior approval
                     under [Section 17-A](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/155945925/) of the Act.
   

2.  The subsequent grant of sanction under Section 197 Cr. PC and [Section 19](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/97670/) of the Prevention of Corruption Act further undermines the
                     Petitioner's plea of prejudice. It is well settled that any alleged
                     irregularity in investigation does not ipso facto vitiate the proceedings
                     unless it results in a failure of justice. No such prejudice has been W.P.(CRL) 1845/2025                                          Page 21 of 23 Signature Not Verified Signed By:VAISHALI PRUTHI Signing Date:24.03.2026 17:38 demonstrated, particularly when cognizance has been validly taken
                     and the matter has progressed to an advanced stage.
   

3.  The Supreme Court in [Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan
                     Singh](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/116362443/) (2012) 3 SCC 64 emphasized that corruption poses a grave
                     threat not only to constitutional governance but also to the
                     foundational values of Indian democracy and the Rule of Law. The
                     Court observed that corruption undermines the core constitutional
                     ideals of justice, liberty, equality and fraternity and, if unchecked,
                     erodes public confidence in democratic institutions. It was therefore
                     held that anti-corruption laws must be interpreted in a manner that
                     strengthens the fight against corruption, and where two reasonable
                     interpretations are possible, the one that advances the eradication of
                     corruption must be preferred over the one that perpetuates it.
   

4.  The Court is also persuaded by the submission of the
                     Respondent that permitting a belated challenge at this stage, solely on
                     a technical plea relating to prior approval, would defeat the orderly
                     administration of criminal justice. The Petitioner participated in the
                     investigation, availed statutory remedies, and allowed multiple
                     cognizance orders to attain finality. The extraordinary jurisdiction
                     under [Article 226](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1712542/) or the inherent powers under [Section 482](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1679850/) Cr.P.C
                     cannot be invoked to bypass statutory limitations or to derail a
                     prosecution at the threshold of trial.
   

5.  It is well settled that the jurisdiction under [Section 482](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1679850/) CrPC is
                     to be exercised by the High Court in cases of apparent perversity and
                     illegality. In [R.K. Vijayasarathy v. Sudha Seetharam](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/192804011/), (2019) 16 SCC W.P.(CRL) 1845/2025                                            Page 22 of 23 Signature Not Verified Signed By:VAISHALI PRUTHI Signing Date:24.03.2026 17:38 739, the Supreme Court held that the inherent powers under Section
                     482 Cr. PC must be exercised with great caution to prevent misuse of
                     criminal proceedings.
   

6.  In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court holds that [Section 17A](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/155945925/) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is prospective
                     in operation and has no application to offences alleged to have been
                     committed between 2004 and 2009. The absence of prior approval
                     under the said provision does not vitiate the preliminary enquiry,
                     registration of the FIR, investigation, or the cognizance orders passed
                     by the learned Special Judge. Moreover, the bar under [Section 17A](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/155945925/) of
                     the Act, shall not apply in the present case as the alleged act is not
                     relatable to any recommendations or decisions taken by the petitioner
                     in discharge of his official functions or duties. The petition, being
                     devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed.
   

RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.

MARCH 24, 2026/na/ RM W.P.(CRL) 1845/2025 Page 23 of 23 Signature Not Verified Signed By:VAISHALI PRUTHI Signing Date:24.03.2026 17:38