ORDER :

These petitions have been filed by petitioners/accused persons challenging the orders passed in Spl.C.C.Nos.189/2013, 56/2015, 68/2007, 67/2007, 32/2015, 189/2013 and 623/2017 dated 19.3.2019, 3.8.2019, 18.3.2019, 18.3.2019, 18.3.2019, 19.3.2019 and 10.5.2019 respectively, by the Courts below on the application for discharge.

2. Since the point of law involved in all these cases is one and the same, though they are not arising out of the common order, in order to avoid repetition of law and facts, they have been clubbed together and disposed of by virtue of a common order.

3. I have heard Sri.Kiran.S.Javali, Sri.Chandrashekara.K., Sri.Mohammed Mujassim, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.Venkatesh.S.Arabatti and Sri.P.Prasanna Kumar, Special Public Prosecutor and Standing Counsel for respondents-Lokayuktha and CBI respectively.

4. All these cases have been registered by Lokayuktha/CBI/ACB under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “PC Act” for short) under Section 13(1)(c)(d) and (e) of the PC Act and after investigation, charge sheet has been filed. In some of the cases, as accused have been retired from their services, since sanction was not necessary, without obtaining sanction, charge sheet was submitted against them. In other cases, where sanction is necessary, after obtaining sanction, charge sheet was filed. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the Special Court framed the charge and trial was commenced. As on that date, amendment to the PC Act 2018 was not in existence. Admittedly, Sections 13(e) and 19 of the PC Act were amended on 26.7.2018. In pursuance to the amendment Act 2018, the present applications came to be filed by the petitioners seeking discharge. After hearing the parties Courts below dismissed said applications. Challenging the legality and correctness of the said order the present petitions have been filed.

5. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that if a provision of a statute is unconditionally omitted without a saving clause in favour of pending proceedings, all actions must stop where the omission finds them, and if final relief has not been granted before the omission goes into effect, it cannot be granted afterwards. It is his further submission that earlier as per Section 19 of PC Act, sanction was not necessary for a retired Government official. But, by virtue of the amendment brought to the said provision, sanction is necessary. Since there is no saving clause, the said amendment will be having retrospective effect and it reverts back to the date of enacting of the said law. Hence, it is his submission that without sanction case cannot be proceeded further. Section 19 of the PC Act clearly enumerates that, no Court shall take cognizance of an offence under the said Act in case of an employee, without there being a previous sanction. It is his further submission that earlier if a person has amassed wealth disproportionate to his known sources of income, he was tried under Section 13(1)(e) of the old PC Act. But now by virtue of Amendment Act, 2018 the said Section has been deleted, as such, accused cannot be tried for a non-existing law.

It is his further submission that as per Article 21 of the Constitution of India, any person facing criminal trial shall be dealt, tried and punished in accordance with law under a procedure established by law. When the Law itself is not in existence, if the accused is tried for the said offence, it would vitiate the entire proceedings. It is his further submission that procedural law is a beneficial legislation and if any benefit arises out of the said procedure, it has to be given to the accused. As such, it is his submission that without sanction, the Court cannot proceed in accordance with law and the accused cannot be tried for such offence. Unless an amendment expressly or by necessary implication makes the provision applicable retrospectively, it cannot be given