The petitioner, who is accused in PCR No.18/2012 on the file of Special Judge and IV Addl. Sessions Judge, at Belgaum, filed a Writ Petition On 22.1.2013, under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India r/w Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for quashing Private Complaint at Annexure A; FIR bearing No.14/2012 on the file of Lokayuktha Police, at Belgaum, and the order dated 19.11.2012 and 20.11.2012, at Annexure B and C.

2. On 22.2.2013, Sri M B Gundawade, panel Advocate for Lokayuktha Police/respondent No.2, was directed to take notice. On service of notice, respondent No.1/complainant entered appearance through Sri Ram P Ghorpade and Sri R G Patil.

3. Learned Single Judge Mr. Justice Anand Byrareddy, after hearing arguments of the learned Counsels for the parties and taking note of the factum that the accused is no more a public servant (MLA) and referring to his own decision rendered in MURUGESH R NIRANI Vs. A ALAM PASHA (Crl.P No.1598/2013 DD 21.5.2013) and by Mr. Justice K N Keshavanarayana, in BABU RAO CHINCHANASUR Vs. STATE, BY LOKAYUKTHA POLICE (2013(3) Kar. L J 480) formulated a question for reference namely:

Whether liberty shall be given to the complainant to file another complaint on the same allegations, as the private complaint filed against the accused/Public servant is liable to be quashed for want of sanction ?

4. The Registry placed the matter before the Hon’ble Chief Justice for orders. Accordingly, the Hon’ble Chief Justice ordered to place the matter before the Division Bench. That is how the matter is before us to answer the reference.

5. We have heard arguments of Sri K M Nataraj, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioner along with Sri Raviraj C Patil; Sri Ram P Ghorpade for respondent No.1 and Sri Mallikarjunaswamy B Hiremath for respondent No.2/ Lokayuktha police.

6. Sri K M Nataraj, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that as on the date of filing the complaint against the petitioner/accused, who was a public servant but complaint filed against him is not accompanied with the sanction to prosecute and therefore the order of the Special Judge from the stage of registering the complaint; referring the matter for investigation and registering FIR against the accused are not sustainable in law and they are abinitiovoid, though the accused ceases to be a public servant and question of giving liberty to the complainant to file another complaint does not arise and the point for reference may be accordingly answered. He has cited the following decisions:

(i) S A VENKATARAMAN Vs. STATE (AIR 1958 SC 107);

(ii) ABHAY SINGH CHAUTALA Vs. C B I (AIR 2011 SCW 3955);

(iii) STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. C NAGARAJASWAMH (2005) 8 SCC 370);

(iv) STATE OF GOA Vs. BABU THOMAS (2005) 8 SCC 130);

(v) MOHAMMED SALEEM Vs. POLICE INSPECTOR, KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA AND ANOTHER (WRIT PETITION No.3368/2007);

(vi) N BHARGAVAN PILLAI AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF KERALA (2004) 13 SCC 217);

(vii) R RAVI Vs. NAGALAXMI BAI (WP No.50423/2012 c/w W P No.6593/2013);

(viii) SRI B V ACHARYA Vs. SRI N VENKATESHAIAH AND ANOTHER (WP NO.14047/2012);

(ix) B S YEDDYURAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA (Criminal Petition No.4497/2013);

(x) SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY Vs. MANMOHAN SINGH AND ANOTHER (2012) 3 SCC 64);

(xi) ANIL KUMAR AND OTHERS Vs. M K AIYAPPA AND ANOTHER (CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.15901591/2013);

(xii) MRS. SARAH MATHEW Vs. INSTITUTE OF CARDIO VASCULAR DISEASES AND OTHERS (2013 AIR SCW 6819); and

(xiii) STATE OF ORISSA THROUGH KUMAR RAGHVENDRA SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. GANESH CHANDRA JEW (2004)8 SCC 40).

7. On the other hand, learned Counsel for respondent No.1/complainant submitted that since the petitioner/accused is no more a public servant, the sanction as contemplated under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short, ‘the PC Act’) is not required. He has cited the following decisions:

(i) (2012) 3 SCC 64 (SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY Vs. MANMOHAN SINGH AND ANOTHER) and

(ii) WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.