IMPORTANT POINT
The amendment to Sec. 19(1)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act extends the requirement of prior sanction for prosecution to include public servants who were in service at the time of the alleged offense, even if they have since retired, thereby reinforcing the necessity of a valid sanction for taking cognizance of offenses under the Act.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. This criminal revision application under Sec. 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr PC' for short) takes exception to the order dtd. 11/1/2023 passed by the Special Judge, North Goa at Panaji in SPCC No.1/2023. The facts in brief are as under.

2. The applicant was working at the relevant time with the Government of Goa being member of the Goa Civil Services. In the year 2016, the applicant was posted as Additional Collector at Panaji. In respect of processing 4 applications for the purpose of obtaining NOC for storage of explosives under the provisions of Explosive Act, it was alleged that the applicant demanded various amounts. There were as many as 3 traps laid which failed. On 6/6/2017, the 4th trap was laid. On the basis of the aforesaid trap, the applicant was arrested. The Anti-Corruption Branch, Department of Vigilance, submitted an application dtd. 21/6/2018 to the Chief Secretary for grant of sanction against the applicant for prosecution under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the P.C. Act', for short). The Chief Secretary granted sanction vide order dtd. 7/11/2018.

3. When the purported sanction was granted by the Chief Secretary, there was neither a draft chargesheet nor any evidence placed before the Chief Secretary. It was noticed by the Government that the sanction was granted by the then Chief Secretary in the absence of any draft charge-sheet and without the entire materials being produced. The Government, therefore, decided that the file should be placed before the Competent Authority for obtaining proper sanction. Accordingly, the Anti-Corruption Branch submitted a proposal dtd. 1/12/2021 before the Chief Secretary for grant of sanction. Along with the said request the entire draft charge-sheet, documents and all the materials were sent to the Chief Secretary. The Chief Secretary thereafter sent the said file for obtaining the sanction from the competent authority namely the Minister for Personnel, who in the present case also happens to be the Chief Minister of the State. The Competent Authority by a detailed and reasoned order dtd. 7/1/2022 refused to grant sanction.

4. Briefly stated that the competent authority observed that the case of the prosecution that there was demand made by the applicant is inherently improbable as the applicant had already cleared two files and two files were already referred for opinion to the other authorities much prior to the date when the alleged trap dtd. 6/6/2017 was conducted. Further, after going through the material, the competent authority held that there is no demand for gratification/bribe of whatsoever nature disclosed in the record.

5. Based on the aforesaid order dtd. 7/1/2022, the ACB filed 'A' Summary before the District And Sessions Judge, North Goa. Notice was issued to the informant as the ACB had filed a closure report. Informant gave no objection for closure of the case.

6. The trial Court was of the opinion that once the Chief Secretary has granted his sanction there was no question of the draft chargesheet being sent for approval and then to seek further sanction without there being any change in circumstances as regards the facts of the case. The learned Special Judge relied upon the decision in the case of State of H.P. V/s. Nishant, (2011) 3 SCC (Cri.)836. to form an opinion that a sanction earlier granted cannot be reviewed. Further, the learned Special Judge noted that the accused, at the time the final report was considered, had retired. Relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kalicharan Mahapatra v/s. State of Orissa, (1998) 6 SCC 411. the learned Special Judge was of the opinion that the Court can take cognizance of the offences without any sanction. The Special Court, therefore, rejected the application for granting 'A' Final Summary and took cognizance of the offence. The registry was directed to register the case.

7. Assailing the impugned order, Shri S