SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar has dismissed a petition seeking the quashing of an FIR registered against four officials of the Motor Vehicles Department posted at ARTO Office, Anantnag, in a corruption case. Justice Sanjay Dhar held that although the investigation agency had initially proceeded in violation of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the eventual compliance with the legal requirement saved the proceedings from being vitiated.
The petitioners, Asif Amin Chalkoo and others, had challenged FIR No. 04/2021 registered by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) South Kashmir under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 120-B of the IPC. They contended that the investigation had been carried out without mandatory prior approval under Section 17A of the Act, rendering the proceedings illegal.
The FIR stemmed from a joint surprise check by the ACB, which revealed a nexus between touts and ARTO officials. Driving license applications were found to bear coded pencil markings corresponding to known touts, including aliases like “A.F”, “A.K”, and “M.B”. Investigators alleged that these touts colluded with ARTO officials to secure vehicle registrations, fitness certificates, and licenses in return for bribes.
During investigation, raids were conducted at the premises of both touts and the accused officials. From the touts, investigators recovered blank fitness books, registration certificates, permit forms, and e-receipts. Items recovered from the homes of the officials included life insurance documents, revenue records, and official certificates. Call detail records allegedly showed regular contact between the accused officials and touts, including on driving test days. Authorities also scrutinized multiple bank accounts linked to the accused and their families.
The petitioners argued that since they were public servants and their actions were within the scope of their official duties, prior government sanction under Section 17A was mandatory before any enquiry or investigation could be initiated. They also claimed that the FIR lacked specific bribery allegations and was based on a vague conspiracy theory.
However, the prosecution countered that when the FIR was registered, the accused were unnamed and the role of specific officials only surfaced later during investigation. Once identified, the ACB sought and obtained sanction from the General Administration Department on November 11, 2022, thus complying with Section 17A.
Justice Dhar, in his 24-page verdict, acknowledged that investigative steps taken from August 2, 2021, when search warrants were obtained, until the sanction date were technically in breach of Section 17A. Nevertheless, he held that the breach was not fatal to the case. Citing Supreme Court rulings including Yashwant Sinha vs. CBI and Nara Chandrababu Naidu vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, the Court observed that belated sanction does not necessarily vitiate an entire investigation.
“Merely because the respondent has undertaken investigation of the impugned FIR in violation of the mandate under Section 17A…cannot form a ground to quash the FIR or the entire investigation,” Justice Dhar held, adding that the petitioners had failed to demonstrate any prejudice or miscarriage of justice due to the delay in seeking sanction.
The Court also rejected the argument that the investigation could not proceed because a previous investigating officer had opined against prosecution. Justice Dhar clarified that since no final report was filed in court, the investigating agency was within its rights to reassess the case and continue the probe.
In conclusion, the Court dismissed the petition and vacated the interim stay on the investigation, allowing the ACB to proceed further.
The judgment reinforces the principle that procedural irregularities, especially where subsequently cured, may not derail criminal investigations, particularly in corruption cases involving public officials
