ORDER

Barin Ghosh, C.J.—At the time when the charge-sheet was filed, applicant was in Government service, inasmuch as order of premature retirement stood quashed by an order passed on a writ petition. The date when the Special Judge Anti-corruption refused to discharge the applicant and framed charge against him, applicant having had reached the normal age of superannuation, stood retired from Government service.

2. Applicant contends that as on the date the charge sheet, i.e., Police Report was filed before the Court, that is the date when the Court is deemed to have taken cognizance and Section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006 debars the Court from taking cognizance. The word ‘cognizance’ means ‘being aware’ specially in a legitimate or official way. No doubt, when the Police Report was filed, Special Judge Anti-corruption became aware that the charge-sheet has been filed. The question is, can it be said that on the said date Special Judge Anti-corruption became aware of the charge-sheet in a legitimate or official way?

3. The conjoint reading of Sections 268, 267 and 269 of the Code of Criminal Procedure makes it abundantly clear that only when prosecution describes the charge brought against the accused by orally presenting its case before the Special Judge Anti-corruption, he becomes aware of the charge in a legitimate or official way. Section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006, prevents the Court from being so aware without sanction.

4. In the instant case, admittedly, when the case was presented before the Special Judge Anti-corruption by the prosecution, the applicant was not a government employee and, accordingly, question of grant of any sanction to prosecute the applicant did not arise and, similarly, absence thereof did not prevent Special Judge Anti-corruption from taking cognizance.

5. In the charge sheet, it was alleged that the enquiry which resulted in placing of an order in favour of M/s Vee Kay Industries was Enquiry No. KG-82/2012/2861 dated November 18, 2002. It was alleged that the said enquiry had three parts and the third part required offers for supply of Wheel Alignment Tester with standard accessories. It alleged that the tender was responded also by M/s Vee Kay Industries, who had offered the second lowest price. While giving such offer, it was alleged, M/s Vee Kay Industries indicated different models of Wheel Alignment Tester as per offered specifications. The charge-sheet alleged that after tenders were opened, tender documents were sent to the Regional Engineering College for technical opinion, who gave a technical opinion to the effect that Model Digital Toe Aligner (DTA1) of tender T23/23, should be purchased. It was alleged that none of the tenderers, who responded to the said enquiry dated November 18, 2002, had offered any price for supply of Model Digital Toe Aligner (DTA1) of tender T23/23. The charge-sheet further alleged that subsequent to receipt of the said opinion of the Technical Committee, the Purchase Committee placed an order on M/s Vee Kay Industries for purchase of Model Digital Toe Aligner (DTA1) at price of Rs. 1.7 lacs each which, on inquiry it has come, was available in the market at Rs. 90,000 each. It was stated that sixteen Units of the said material had been ordered for a sum of Rs. 27.20 lacs; whereas the same was available in the market at Rs.14.40 lacs. It was alleged that the persons accused in the charge-sheet conspired with each other and purchased Rs.14.40 lacs worth material at Rs.27.20 lacs. Because the applicant was one of the members of the Purchase Committee, he has been arrayed as one of the accused in the charge-sheet.

6. The main plunk of the argument of the applicant is that he was an Accountant then working as financial advisor and, accordingly, was included in the Purchase Committee for the purpose of apprising the Purchase Committee whether funds are available for effecting purchase, whether financial terms and conditions of the te