JUDGMENT :

Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, J.

Leave granted

2. These appeals have been preferred by the appellant-State of Madhya Pradesh against the common order dated 5th November, 2 012 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore. By the common impugned order, the Division Bench allowed the two revision petitions preferred by respondent-Ram Manohar Pandey and quashed the order dated 16lh September, 2011 passed by the Special Judge (under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988), Ujjain in Special Case No. 16 of 2004 with respect to Crime No. 66 of 1993 and Special Case No. 17 of 2004 with respect to Crime No. 67 of 1993.

3. The respondent-who was appointed on the post of a Sub-Engineer w.e.f. 1.7.1972 in the Medical Council, Biaora, District Rajgarh was initially promoted to the higher post of Assistant Engineer and thereafter to the post of Executive Engineer by resolution dated 9th May, 1988. He was placed on deputation with Municipal Corporation, Ujjain from 1991-1993 as City Engineer. While he was working there, certain charges of corruption were made against him. The Dy. S.P, Special Police Establishment Lokayukta, Ujjain filed complaints against the respondent which were registered as Crime Nos. 66 of 1993 and 67 of 1993 for offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

4. In the year 2004, when sanction was sought for prosecuting the respondent and some others, the Municipal Corporation, Ujjain by resolution Nos. 343 and 344 dated 23rd September, 2004 refused to grant sanction. In spite of the same, charge-sheet was filed against the respondent and others before the Trial Court. The charge sheet was challenged by the respondent by filing an application and the same was dismissed by order dated 24th September, 2004.

5. Thereafter prosecution sought sanction from the State Government to prosecute the respondent and some others. But the State Government refused to grant sanction by order dated 22nd August, 2006.

6. As the matter remained pending an application for discharge was filed by the respondent. The Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, Ujjain, by its order dated 9th September, 2009 discharged the respondent with following observation :

"In the case before me, the accused Ram Manohan Pandey was working on the post of Executive Engineer in Municipal Corporation of Ujjain on deputation and at present he has been working as Engineer in Municipal Corporation, Ratlam. Accused Ram Manohar Pandey being a Government Servant (Civil Servant) is a public servant and having transferred from the Municipal Corporation Ujjain, he is now working at Ratlam and he is neither a retired personnel nor attained the age of superannuation and also he has not been discharged, nor was dismissed. In the above situation there is prior need of taking prosecution sanction against Ram Manohar Pandey for his trial in respect of offences under Prevention of Corruption Act. Since, prosecution sanction has not been granted against the accused Ram Manohar Pandey, therefore, cognizance of offence could not be taken against him. Therefore, he is hereby discharged."

7. The aforesaid order was not challenged by the State and, therefore, the order of discharge reached finality.

8. The respondent attained the age of superannuation on 30th September, 2009 and consequently was superannuated from service. Subsequently, a fresh challan was filed by prosecution on 8th December, 2009 against the respondent and some other contrary to the order dated 9th September, 2009. This time when the respondent filed applications for discharge which were rejected by the Trial Court vide order dated 31st March, 2010.

9. Being aggrieved, the respondent filed two revision petition Nos. 802 of 2010 and 803 of 2010 challenging the order of Trial Court dated 31st March, 2010. However, both the petitions were dismissed by the High Court by the common order dated l3t October, 2010.

10. Thereafter, respond