Crl.R.P.No.2457/10 is by accused Nos.4 and 8 and Crl.R.P.No.3137/10 is by the 3rd accused in C.C.No.1/08 on the file of the Special Judge for C.B.I. Cases, Lakshadweep.

2. Accused, nine in number, are proceeded with for offences punishable under S.120B read with Ss.468 and 417 of the Indian Penal Code and Ss.7, 12, 13(2) read with S.13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short “the Act”), on a report filed by the Inspector of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Kochi.

3. Petitioners in the aforesaid revisions (accused 3, 4 and 8) had filed petitions, separately, seeking their discharge raising various grounds contending that the prosecution against them is unsustainable. Accused 4 and 8, in these petitions, had raised challenges as to want of sanction under S.197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short “the Code”) and also S.19 of the Act, as interdicting the court from taking cognizance of the offences imputed against them in the case. The learned Special Judge had dismissed all the aforesaid petitions, with another petition moved by the 2nd accused, by a common order. Propriety and correctness of that order is challenged in these revisions by three of the accused (3rd accused separately and accused 4 and 8 jointly).

4. Prosecution case, in brief, is that the Directorate of Education of Union Territory of Lakshadweep, directed to supply read-made uniforms for the school children free of costs for the academic year 2005-06. A Uniform Tender Evaluation, Sample Selection and Procurement Committee, consisting of 5 persons, who included accused 1 to 3, was formed for evaluation and finalization of the tenders for supply of ready-made uniforms. Pursuant to a conspiracy by the members of the aforesaid committee with one Nagendran, who later turned out to be an approver, substandard uniforms, supplied by the 5th accused and the aforesaid approver, in the name of one Emporium, violating all the tender conditions, and, making false and forged entries on record, were purchased, and, thereby, they caused wrongful loss to the Lakshadweep Administration. The aforesaid accused persons had conspired with the other accused, some of whom are private persons, doing textile business and another a tailoring instructor, to obtain wrongful gain for themselves in purchasing substandard goods, causing wrongful loss to the Lakshadweep Administration. Annexure A1 in Crl.R.P.No.3137/10 is a copy of the charge sheet filed against the accused in the case, imputing the offences under S.120B read with Ss.468 and 417 of the Indian Penal Code and Ss.7, 12, 13(2) read with S.13 (1)(d) of the Act.

5. Annexure A1 charge sheet would disclose that sanction has been accorded b the competent authority under S.19(1)(c) of the Act against accused 2, 3 and 9. As on the date when the charge was laid before the court, accused 4 and 8, the revision petitioners in Crl.R.P.No.2457/10 had retired from service and as such, for their prosecution for the offences, no sanction under S.19(1)(c) of the Act is needed, has also been recorded in the final report presented before the court. Though the aforesaid petitioners (accused 4 and 8) have raised a plea that want of sanction under S.19(1)(c) of the Act is fatal to their prosecution, admittedly, as both of them, retired from service when the final report was presented before the court, there is no merit in that objection canvassed to impeach the order of the court below, declining their plea of discharge (see Parkash Singh Badal v. State of Punjab (2007 (1) SCC 1). So much so, in the present case, the short question that emerges for consideration is whether sanction under S.197 of the Code is required to prosecute the revision petitioners (accused 3, 4 and 8) in these two revisions.

6. As already stated, the 3rd accused as against whom Annexure A1 report would indicate that sanction had already been issued for prosecution under S.19(1)(c) of the Act by the competent authority, has not raised a