ORDER :

Both these petitions are preferred by accused No.2. Criminal Revision Petition 768 of 2020 arises out of an order dated 09-01-2020 passed in Special C.C.No.106 of 2008 rejecting an application in I.A.No.21 seeking discharge of the petitioner from the array of accused. Criminal Revision Petition No.624 of 2020 calls in question an order dated 27-01-2020 by which the discharge applications of several accused including the petitioner are turned down in the very Special C.C.No.106 of 2008. It is therefore, these petitions are taken up together and considered by this common order.

2. Facts adumbrated are as follows:-

The petitioner was at the relevant point in time working as Registrar of the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences (‘the University’ for short) and was in-charge conduct of Post Graduate Entrance Test (‘PGET’) in the month of February 2006 for allotment of seats to candidates for postgraduate degree courses in medical sciences. The petitioner being the Registrar was further in charge of complete conduct of examination right from safe keep of prepared question papers and their execution in an appropriate manner on the date of examination. The examination takes place on 12-02-2006. The result of the examination is, a few of the candidates do not get selected and a few do. Complaints galore on the conduct of examination and the manner in which the candidates are selected. The media projects lot of foul play in the conduct of PGET 2006. Therefore, owing to blowing controversy, Government constitutes a Committee – a Three Member Committee to go into the veracity of the allegations projected in the conduct of examination. The Committee submits its report opining that all was not well with the conduct of examination and leakage of question paper or fraud has been played at the higher levels in the office. It is for those higher levels in the office, entrustment comes to be made to the hands of the CBI by the State of Karnataka for conduct of thorough investigation into the matter.

3. The CBI takes over the issue and conducts preliminary inquiry. The preliminary inquiry leads to registration of a FIR against 30 accused including the petitioner. On registration of FIR, further investigation is conducted and the CBI files the charge sheet on 28-07-2008 finally against accused 1 to 20. The petitioner is accused No.2, a public servant. The offences alleged while filing the charge sheet against the petitioner were for the offences punishable under Section 13 (1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (‘the Act’ for short) and under Section 409 , 420 and 120B r/w 34 of the IPC.

4. On filing of the charge sheet by the CBI, the petitioner moves an application before the concerned Court seeking his discharge from the array of accused. The application is preferred on a solitary ground that the petitioner being a public servant, cognizance and further proceedings could not have been conducted without sanction for such prosecution at the hands of the Competent Authority. The learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 09-01-2020 answers the application -I.A.No.21 by rejecting it and holding that sanction to prosecute the petitioner who had by then retired from service was not necessary under Section 19 of the Act and no part of the act of the petitioner would amount to action taken in discharge of his official duty. Therefore, both sanction under Section 19 of the Act or under Section 19 7 of the CrPC is not required is what the concerned Court holds to reject the application. It is, therefore, the petitioner is before this Court in Criminal Revision Petition No.768 of 2020.

5. In Criminal Revision Petition No.624 of 2020 what is called in question is an order dated 27-01-2020 rejecting a discharge application which was filed by the petitioner along with other accused. Therefore, the challenge is to the rejection of discharge of the petitioner from the array of accused in Special C.C.No.106 of 2008.

6. Heard Sri K