ORDER

1. HEARD LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES.

2. DELAY CONDONED.

3. LEAVE GRANTED.

4. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS ARE:

BY AN ORDER DATED 4-1-1989, THE APPELLANT WAS COMPULSORILY RETIRED WITH EFFECT FROM 10-1-1989. THE APPELLANT CHALLENGED THE COMPULSORY RETIREMENT BEFORE THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL (CAT). CAT SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF COMPULSORY RETIREMENT. THE RESPONDENTS FILED A SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION BEFORE E THIS COURT. THIS COURT PASSED AN INTERIM ORDER STAYING THE ORDER OF CAT. ULTIMATELY BY AN ORDER DATED 11-1-1994 T THIS COURT SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CAT.

5. DURING THE OPERATION OF INTERIM STAY, PROSECUTION WAS LAUNCHED AGAINST THE APPELLANT FOR OFFENCES UNDER SECTION 13(1)(D) READ WITH SECTION 13(2) OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 AND SECTION 120-B OF THE PENAL CODE.

6. THE APPELLANT FILED A PETITION BEFORE THE SPECIAL JUDGE CLAIMING THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF SANCTION, THE PROSECUTION COULD NOT BE PROCEEDED WITH. THE APPLICATION WAS DISMISSED BY THE SPECIAL JUDGE. REVISION FILED BY HIM HAS BEEN DISMISSED BY THE HIGH COURT. HENCE THIS APPEAL.

7. BEFORE US, IT HAS BEEN URGED THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF SANCTION UNDER G SECTION 19 OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 19