Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Bom) 2094

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Amit B.Borkar, J.
Sudarshan Kumar Abrol – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
REVN/619/2018
Decided On : 18-10-2022

Advocates Appeared:
Prakash L.Shetty, Advocate, Krishna Sarkate, Advocate, Sarthak Shetty, Advocate, Rohin R.Chauhan, Advocate, Hiten Venegavkar, Advocate, Bharat Mirchandani, Advocate, Kamar Shaikh, Advocate, S.S.Pednekar, Advocate

The main legal point established is that the competent authority's refusal of sanction under Sec. 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure while the accused were in service barred their prosecution after retirement, despite the lack of necessity for sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act after retirement.

Headnote:
Sanction - Prevention of Corruption Act - Indian Penal Code - Ss. 120B, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, Sec. 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) - The court quashed and set aside the order rejecting the discharge application of the accused nos. 5 and 7, holding that the competent authority's refusal of sanction under Sec. 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure while the accused were in service barred their prosecution after retirement, despite the lack of necessity for sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act after retirement.
Fact of the Case:

The accused were charged with conspiring to cheat and defraud a bank, and the competent authority of the bank refused sanction for their prosecution three times while they were in service. The accused retired, and the CBI submitted a charge sheet. The accused filed an application for discharge, arguing that prosecution could not be launched after their retirement due to the earlier refusals of sanction.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the competent authority's refusal of sanction while the accused were in service barred their prosecution after retirement, despite the lack of necessity for sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act after retirement.
Issues: The main issue was whether the accused could be prosecuted after retirement despite the competent authority's earlier refusals of sanction while they were in service.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principle established in the case of Chittaranjan Das vs State Of Orissa, holding that the accused could not be prosecuted after retirement if the competent authority had refused sanction while they were in service, even though no sanction for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act was necessary after retirement.
Final Decision: The court quashed and set aside the order rejecting the discharge application, allowing the accused to be discharged from the pending case.

JUDGMENT

1. The applicants-original accused nos.5 and 7 in CBI Special Case No.67 of 2013, are challenging the order dtd. 26/9/2018, passed in Special Case No.67 of 2013, rejecting the discharge Application of applicants for offences punishable under Ss. 120B read with 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Sec. 13(2) read with 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The gist of allegations against the applicants is that they conspired to cheat and defraud the Syndicate Bank, Shivaji Nagar Branch, Pune, to Rs.54.68 Crores during 2004-2007 in cash credit account of M/s. Satav Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. in sanction and release of various credit facilities to the said company.

2. On 6/3/2009, the Chief Vigilance Officer of Syndicate Bank filed a complaint with CBI against M/s. Satav Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. alleging they conspired with other accused to cheat and defraud the Syndicate Bank from 2004-2007.

3. On 26/3/2009, CBI registered a crime vide FIR No.RC-8(E)/2009/CBI/B.S.&F.C.Mumbai against M/s. Satav Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. Applicant no.1 (original accused no.5) was Regional Head at Pune from 7/5/2002 to 23/10/2006, and applicant no.2 (original accused no.7) was the Chief Manager of Syndicate Bank, Shivaji Nagar Branch, Pune, from 1/9/2005 till 12/7/2009.

4. The competent authority of Syndicate Bank on 4/1/2011 and 10/1/2011 refused to accord sanction under Sec. 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to prosecute applicants holding that they had acted in accordance with the rules and regulations of the bank. On 28/10/2011, the competent authority refused sanction for the second time. Finally, on 16/5/2012, the competent authority refused sanction for the third time.

5. On 31/12/2012, applicant no.1 retired from the Bank on superannuation. On 28/2/2013, applicant no.2 retired from the Bank on superannuation.

6. On 29/4/2013, the CBI submitted a charge sheet before the Special Court vide CBI Special Case No.67 of 2013 against the applicants and other accused.

7. Applicants, therefore, filed an Application for discharge alleging that the competent authority had refused sanction thrice earlier while Applicants were in service, and therefore, the prosecution could not be launched after the retirement of applicants.

8. On 15/11/2014, the learned Special Judge rejected the Application for discharge. The applicants challenged vide order dtd. 15/11/2014 before this Court. This Court, on 16/8/2016, set aside the order of rejection of discharge and directed the learned Special Judge to decide the Application for discharge on its own merits.

9. On 26/9/2018, the learned Special Judge again rejected the Application for discharge, holding that there is no need for sanction under Sec. 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Aggrieved thereby present Revision Application has been filed.

10. Learned advocate appearing for the applicants relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Chittaranjan Das vs the State Of Orissa, 2011 (7) SCC 167 to urge that once the competent authority refused the sanction for prosecution while the public servant was in service, he cannot be prosecuted later after retirement, notwithstanding the fact that no sanction for the prosecution under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, is necessary after the retirement of a public servant.

11. Per contra, the learned advocate for the CBI submitted that competent authority, by order dtd. 10/4/2013, granted sanction as per the advice of the Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial Services, Vigilance Division. He submitted that the competent authority held that since the applicants have been superannuated from the services of the bank, there is no requirement of sanction for the prosecution of the applicants. He submitted that issue of the validity of the sanction cannot be gone into at this stage, as Special Court would decide the issue at the time of trial.

12. Having carefully considered the submissions o