ORDER

1. The correctness of the impugned order passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore (hereinafter called as the "High Court" in short), wherein it has declined to quash the proceedings for taking cognizance of the offence under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code ("Indian Penal Code" for short) read with Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ("P.C. Act" for short) in Criminal Petition No. 2216/2009, is under challenge before this Court, urging certain legal grounds with a prayer to quash the proceedings initiated against the Appellant. On the last date of hearing i.e. on 18th February, 2015 we have heard Learned Counsel for the parties extensively. However, some clarifications were sought for from the learned senior counsel Mr. Amarendra Sharan after dictating the Order on 18th February, 2015, hence, this matter is listed again today for further hearing/clarification from the Appellant's counsel.

2. Heard Mr. Amarendra Sharan, learned senior counsel appearing for the Appellant.

3. Learned senior counsel has invited our attention to Sub-section (2) of Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act. He submitted that the alleged criminal conspiracy against the Appellant and other accused in the case registered against the Appellant and Ors. falls within the ambit of Sub-section (2) of Section 120-B inter alia contending that the said provision provides that a party to a criminal conspiracy to an offence committed under Section 120-B shall be punished with imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or with fine or with both. He further invited our attention to the fact that the said complaint was lodged by the Respondent-CBI before the Special Judge, CBI on the basis of credible information received by it on 21.09.1999, the alleged occurrence is of the year 1995, therefore, he submitted that it is beyond one year on the date of filing the complaint and registering the FIR and taking cognizance of the aforesaid offences against the Appellant and other accused. Learned senior counsel placed reliance on the judgments of this Court in the case of P. Nallammal and Anr. v. State Rep. by Inspector of Police, 1999 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 676 : (1999) 6 SCC 559, State of U.P. v. Udai Narayan and Anr., 1999 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 739 : (1999) 8 SCC 741 and State thr. C.B.I. v. Jitender Kumar Singh, 2014 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 908 : 2014 (1) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 628 : (2014) 2 SCALE 65 and submitted that the allegations made against the Appellant is only with regard to criminal conspiracy. Allegation under Section 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act is not applicable to the Appellant as he is not being a public servant. It is not the case of the prosecution that the Appellant has abetted the Government servant, who is the accused of committing an offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act. Then only, the provisions of Sections 8, 9, and 10 of the P.C. Act will be attracted against him. In the absence of the same, since the punishment provided under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code is six months simple imprisonment, the provisions of Section 468 Code of Criminal Procedure are attracted which is a clear bar for registering and initiating further criminal proceedings against the Appellant beyond the period of one year as provided under Clause (b) of Sub-section (2) of Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

4. The said contention has been strongly rebutted by Mr. Rajiv Nanda, Learned Counsel for the respondent-CBI. Placing reliance on Section 473 Code of Criminal Procedure to substantiate his contention that the Court may take cognizance after the expiry of limitation, if it is satisfied on the facts and circumstances of the case and the delay has been satisfactorily explained or that it is necessary to do so in the interest of justice. The learned Special Judge, CBI in C.C. No. 115/2001 after satisfying that the dela