ORDER : A. BADHARUDEEN, J. 1. This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 , by the petitioner, who is the 1 st accused in Crime No.V.C. 04/KNR/2025 of VACB, Kannur, seeking the following reliefs: “i) To set aside Annexure II FIR, and Annexure III prosecution sanction order as unjust, illegal and arbitrary; ii) To declare that the petitioner is not liable to be prosecuted based on Annexure II FIR, and Annexure III prosecution sanction order; iii) To direct the respondents to refrain from proceeding against the petitioner on the basis of Annexure II FIR, and Annexure III prosecution sanction order; iv) To pass such other order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice. v) To dispense with the filing of the translation of vernacular documents.” 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor, in detail. Perused relevant materials available. 3. In this matter, the prosecution allegation as per the FIR is that, during two separate terms upto the year 2024, the petitioner/1 st accused, who has been working as Secretary of Neerveli Women Co-operative Society, hatched criminal conspiracy with accused Nos.2 to 14, who were the members of the Governing Committee, to obtain unlawful financial gain by sanctioning fake and benami loans in the names of Rama K (the complainant herein) and Sheeba M.K, who were working as collection agents and in the names of their relatives, instead of granting the same to the actual borrowers and thereby caused huge financial loss to the Society. It is further alleged that, the accused also misappropriated money from fixed deposits, without the knowledge of the depositors by forging their signatures and creating forged documents and thereby committed criminal breach of trust and cheating against the depositors. On this premise, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Amendment Act, 1988 [hereinafter referred as ‘P.C. Act’ for short] and under Sections 409 , 475, 471 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code [hereinafter referred as ‘ IPC ’ for short], by the accused. 4. On this premise, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Amendment Act, 1988 [hereinafter referred as ‘P.C. Act’ for short] and under Sections 409 , 475, 471 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code [hereinafter referred as ‘ IPC ’ for short], by the accused. 4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, none of the offences would attract against the petitioner/1 st accused and the registration of FIR against her and other accused is unsustainable. Therefore, Annexure-II FIR is liable to be quashed. He also submitted that, Annexure-III prior approval issued under Section 17A of the P.C. Act was not issued by the competent authority. Therefore, the very enquiry and registration of Annexure-II FIR are illegal and the prayers sought for in this petition are liable to be allowed. 5. Repelling the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor would submit that, in this case, the allegation of the prosecution is misappropriation of funds and for which, prior approval under Section 17A of the P.C. Act as amended, is not necessary. Therefore, mere issuance of Annexure-III would not take away the power of the Investigating Officer to register FIR and investigate into the allegations. The learned Public Prosecutor has placed decisions of this Court viz. Jayaprakash v. State of Kerala [ 2022 (1) KLT 126 ] and Shankara Bhat and Others v. State of Kerala and Others [2021 (5) KHC 248 : 2021 (2) KLD 367 ] in support of his contentions. 6. In view of the rival contentions, the questions to be decided are (1) which are the cases where prior approval under Section 17A of the P.C. Act as amended is required? and (2) whether prior approval under Section 17A of the P.C. Act as amended is required to conduct enquiry and investigation into the allegations raised in this case? 7. Section 17A of the P.C. Act as amended in 2018 provides as under: “ 17-A. Enquiry or Inquiry or investigation of offences relatable to re- commendations made or decision taken by public servant in discharge of o functions or duties. 7. Section 17A of the P.C. Act as amended in 2018 provides as under: “ 17-A. Enquiry or Inquiry or investigation of offences relatable to re- commendations made or decision taken by public servant in discharge of o functions or duties. -No police officer shall conduct any enquiry or inquiry or investigation into any offence alleged to 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.” 8. Even a meticulous reading of Section 17A of the P.C. Act would make it clear that, prior approval is necessary to conduct any enquiry or inquiry or investigation into any offence alleged to to have been committed by a public servant under the Act, specifically on two counts viz. (1) where the alleged offence is relatable to any recommendation made and (2) where the alleged offence is relatable to any decision taken by the public servant in discharge of his official functions or duties. The necessary corollary is that, in all other cases except the above two, prior approval under Section 17A of the P.C. Act as amended is not required. 9. The necessary corollary is that, in all other cases except the above two, prior approval under Section 17A of the P.C. Act as amended is not required. 9. In the instant case, misappropriation of funds is the main allegation based on fake loans and the same is not at all based on a recommendation or decision taken by the public servant, herein the petitioner. Therefore, prior approval under Section 17A of the P.C. Act as amended is not required to register FIR and to conduct investigation in this case. Moreover, in this case an enquiry was ordered as per Annexure-III prior approval issued by the Additional Chief Secretary to the Government. 10. Going through the allegation as extracted herein above, prima facie, the offences alleged are made out and therefore, the same would require effective investigation. In such a case, quashment of Annexure-II FIR, without allowing investigation is found to be unwarranted, as the allegations would require effective investigation to reach a logical conclusion. Therefore, this petition is found to be meritless and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this petition stands dismissed, with liberty to the Investigating Officer to proceed with investigation and complete the same without much delay.