JUDGMENT :

1. Heard.

2. In this revision application, challenge is to the order dated 21.09.2016, passed by the learned Special Judge, Akola, whereby the learned Special Judge rejected the application at Exh. 10 made by the applicants/accused Nos. 1 and 2 for their discharge in Special ACB case No. 2 of 2014.

3. In this crime, initially there were three accused. Accused No. 3 Hiraman Ghatte died on 29.04.2011, before filing of the charge-sheet. The accused No. 2/applicant No.2 died during the pendency of this application. Now, the special criminal case is pending against accused No.1. Accused No.1 retired from service, on 30.06.2005, before filing of the charge-sheet.

4. The sum and substance of the case of the prosecution against the accused is that in the year 2004, the accused No.1 was working as a ‘Divisional Controller’, the accused No.2 was working as an ‘Engineer’ and accused No. 3 was working as ‘Traffic Inspector’ ¼okgrqd fujh{kd½- It is the case of the prosecution that in the year 2004, the process for filling up the vacant posts was initiated by the State Transport Corporation of Maharashtra. Applicant No.1/accused No.1 was appointed as Chairman of the Selection Committee, whereas the remaining two accused were the members of the Committee. The entrance examination was held between 05.06.2004 and 16.06.2004. Finally 267 candidates were selected. For the purpose of preparing final list, the Committee conducted the requisite test and in the said test, 169 aspiring candidates were held qualified for the post. It is stated that the accused persons prepared the merit list and forwarded the same to the Regional office. It was published on the notice board. Thereafter, the final list of selected candidates and wait listed candidates was displayed. It is the case of the prosecution against the accused that in the process of the recruitment, accused Nos. 1 to 3 made the corrections in the marks of the candidates. The original marks given in case of some of the candidates were scored out/corrected to favour some candidates for extraneous considerations. When the offence came to light, accused No.1 destroyed the rough selection list. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused in the process of selection committed misconduct, being public servants. Similarly, for the purpose of pecuniary advantage, by corrupt and illegal means, they tampered the mark sheets and prepared the false mark list of the candidates. They prepared the false documents and destroyed the original documents.

5. On the basis of the complaint, the Crime bearing No.3228 of 2005 was registered against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 13(1)(b) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (For short ‘the P.C. Act.’) and under Sections 120-B, 420, 465 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation, the charge-sheet came to be filed. Learned Special Judge took the cognizance. It was stated in the charge-sheet that the sanction for prosecution of the accused Nos. 2 and 3 was applied for, however the same was not granted. As far as the accused No.1 is concerned, before filing of the charge-sheet he had retired from service and therefore, the sanction was not applied for, being not necessary.

6. The accused Nos.1 and 2 made the application for their discharge. It is their case that the candidates, who were found eligible in the test and ultimately selected, have not made any complaint against them. There is no evidence to establish their complicity in the commission of the crime. It is further contended that as far as the accused Nos. 2 and 3 are concerned, the sanction was refused by the Government. As far as the accused No.1 is concerned, it is contended that sanction was not obtained for his prosecution. According to the accused, the cognizance taken by the learned Special Judge without previous sanction was illegal. There is no material in the charge-sheet to indicate that the accused have fabricated the selectio