The main legal point established in the judgment is that the amendment to the Prevention of Corruption Act made it clear that sanction is necessary even for subjecting a retired public servant to prosecution.

ORDER :

Karnataka Lokayukta being the petitioner has questioned the correctness of the order dated 2.6.2015 passed on an application filed under section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act in Special Case 44/2014 on the file of Principal Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru Rural District. The brief facts are as follows:

2. The petitioner initiated suo motu action against the respondent who was an IAS officer alleging that during the check period from 7.2.1977 to 19.12.2007, he had amassed assets in his name and in the name of his family members to an extent of Rs.2,21,26,963.92. His total income during that period was found to be Rs.2,39,19,513.37 and total expenses of himself and his family members was Rs.1,30,58,787.99. Thus it was found that the total value of the assets acquired by him disproportionate to his known source of income was Rs.1,12,66,238.54 which was equivalent to 47.1%. FIR came to be registered for the offence under sections 13(1)(e) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. After holding investigation, the petitioner submitted the final report to the State Government to send it to appropriate authority for according sanction to prosecute the respondent. Since the respondent was an IAS officer, the appropriate authority was the Government of India. But, the State Government instead of forwarding the final report to the Central Government rejected the sanction on 6.7.2012 though it had no jurisdiction being not an appropriate authority. Then the respondent filed W.P.No.15687/2013 for quashing the FIR registered against him by the Lokayukta police and directing the Lokayukta police to file final report. It appears that in the writ proceeding, a submission was made on behalf of Lokayukta that the Central Government was the competent authority for according sanction to prosecute the respondent and that final report would be laid after obtaining sanction from competent authority. But before the sanction was obtained, the respondent retired from service on attaining superannuation. In view of retirement, the Chief Secretary by his letter dated 14.3.2014 addressed to ADGP, Karnataka Lokayukta, stated that there was no need to obtain sanction and accordingly the Government had withdrawn its letter dated 6.7.2012 rejecting the request made by the Lokayukta for according sanction. Pursuant to this letter, charge sheet was filed against the respondent.

3. Thereafter the respondent made an application under section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act seeking to discharge him on the ground that he could not be subjected to prosecution in the absence of sanction. The learned Special Judge allowed this application and respondent was discharged. Therefore this revision petition before this court now.

4. I have heard Sri B.S.Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.M.Chandrashekar, learned senior counsel for the respondent.

5. Sri. B.S.Prasad argued two points, the first being that the respondent was an IAS officer and the competent authority to issue sanction was the Central Government. The State Government, instead of rejecting the sanction on 6.7.2012, ought to have forwarded the entire records to the Central Government. Actually the State Government had no authority to reject the sanction and in this view the order dated 6.7.2012 is of no consequence at all. It was a non-est order and can be ignored. The second point of argument was that the petitioner applied to the Central Government for sanction as has been observed in the order passed by this court in W.P.No.15687/2013. The records were submitted to the State Government for forwarding the same to the Central Government to obtain sanction. Since the respondent retired on attaining superannuation, it was felt that sanction was not necessary for prosecuting the respondent and hence sanction was not obtained. He argued that by the time charge sheet was filed, the respondent was no longer a public servant and in this view if he was