No sanction under Section 19 PC Act required to prosecute retired public servant if retired before court cognizance; PC Act protection ceases post-retirement.

JUDGMENT :

MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J.

1. The present Revision Application is filed by the Applicant seeking quashing and setting aside of the order dated 08.02.2008 passed by the learned Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Jalna, below Exhibit-134 in Special (SPA) No.2/2005, whereby the Applicant’s request for quashing of the prosecution and for discharge was rejected.

2. This Court vide its order dated 17.06.2008 admitted the Revision and stayed the proceedings before the trial Court insofar as the Applicant is concerned. The present Revision Application is taken up for final hearing by consent of the parties.

3. The Applicant was arrayed as an accused in Crime No.141/2000 registered with Kadim Jalna Police Station for alleged irregularity and misappropriation committed by him while performing duties in the capacity of the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Jalna during the period of 08.08.1997 to 13.10.1998 on the complaint of the Executive Engineer of the Rural Water Supply Department, Zilla Parishad, Jalna for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 408, 409, 119, 465, 109 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 13(2) and 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

4. The Applicant got retired on superannuation from the Government service on 30.04.2003. The prosecution has completed the investigation in the aforesaid crime and has filed a charge-sheet before the learned Special Judge, Jalna in respect of the said crime on 18.01.2005. The prosecution submitted a note along with the charge-sheet that the sanction is being sought for prosecution of the Applicant accused along with the other co- accused from the competent authority and necessary correspondence in that regard is being made and after receipt of the sanction, the same would be produced before the Court and hence the trial shall not proceed.

5. The Applicant therefore filed an application on 27.07.2007 before the learned Trial Court at Jalna on the ground that, although the charge-sheet had been filed on 18.01.2005, sanction had not yet been accorded by the competent authority. The Applicant accordingly prayed for quashing of the prosecution alleged against him for want of mandatory sanction. The learned Trial Court called upon the prosecution to file its say. The prosecution accordingly filed its say and prayed for rejection of the application. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, CID, Jalna, submitted a letter before the trial Court conveying that the sanction against the Applicant had been rejected by the Government vide order dated 07.12.2007. The Applicant thereafter filed one more written submission, Exhibit-202, on 15.01.2008, praying for quashment of the prosecution against him on the ground of refusal of sanction by the Government. However, the learned Trial Court, vide the impugned order dated 08.02.2008, was pleased to reject the application for quashment of the prosecution and for discharge of the Applicant.

. Being aggrieved by the order dated 08.02.2008 thereby rejecting the application for discharge and quashment of the prosecution and against the Applicant, the Applicant has filed the present Revision.

6. The learned Senior Counsel Mr. Deshmukh for the Applicant submits that the Applicant was exonerated in the departmental inquiry conducted by the Government for very same charges vide communication issued by the Government dated 17.05.2003. It is further submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that as the Government itself has refused t