Point of Law : Criminal Conspiracy and Cheating - prosecution was also fully aware of need for getting sanction. Still petitioners are being proceeded against without sanction, for reason that they have since retired from service. Such an assumption is incorrect. For all these reasons, prosecution of petitioners is hit by section 197 Cr.P.C so that they are entitled to be discharged under Section 239 of Criminal Procedure Code.

ORDER :

These revision petitions are filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) challenging the order dated 08.11.2011 passed by the Court of the Special Judge for CBI Cases, Lakshadweep by which it allowed the applications for discharge filed under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code') by accused 4 and 8 in the case C.C.No.1/2008 on the file of that Court.

2. The respondent in Crl.R.P.No.509/2012 is Accused No.8 and the respondent in Crl.R.P.No.532/2012 is Accused No.4 in the above case.

3. There are altogether nine accused in the case. The offences alleged against them are punishable under Sections 7, 12 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') and also under Sections 468, 471, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

4. The prosecution case, in short, is as follows :

The Directorate of Education of the Union Territory of Lakshadweep had directed to supply, free of cost, ready-made uniforms to the school children for the academic year 2005-06. A Uniform Tender Evaluation, Sample Selection and Procurement Committee, consisting of five persons, was formed for the evaluation and finalisation of the tenders submitted for supply of the ready-made uniforms. Pursuant to a conspiracy hatched by the members of the aforesaid committee with one Nagendran, who later turned to be an approver, sub-standard uniforms were purchased, violating the tender conditions and by making false and forged entries on record. The aforesaid persons had conspired with the other accused, who were private persons doing textile business and another a tailoring instructor, to obtain wrongful gain for themselves in purchasing sub-standard materials and causing wrongful loss to the Lakshadweep Administration.

5. Accused 4 and 8, along with some other accused, filed applications for discharge as Crl.M.P.Nos.28/2009 and 29/2009 before the Special Court under Section 239 of the Code. The aforesaid applications were dismissed by the Special Court by order dated 12.07.2010. Accused 4 and 8 challenged that order before this Court in Crl.R.P. No.2457/2010. As per the order dated 22.09.2011 in Crl.R.P.No.2457/2010, this Court partly allowed the revision petition and directed the Special Court to decide the question of sanction under Section 197 of the Code which was raised by accused 4 and 8.

6. Thereafter, the Special Court considered afresh the applications for discharge filed by accused 4 and 8, in the light of the contention raised by them that sanction under Section 197 of the Code was necessary to prosecute them. The Special Court, by a common order dated 08.11.2011, found that the prosecution against accused 4 and 8 is bad for want of sanction under Section 197 of the Code and discharged them. The CBI has filed these revision petitions challenging the aforesaid order passed by the Special Court.

7. Heard learned Central Government Standing Counsel who appeared for the CBI and the learned counsel for the respondents in the revision petitions.

8. Section 197(1) of the Code states that, when any person who is or was a Judge or Magistrate or a public servant not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Government is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, no Court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction of the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be.

9. In Amrik Singh v. State of Pepsu: AIR 1955 SC 309, it has been held as follows:

“The result of the authorities may thus be summed up : It is not every offence committed by a public servant that requires sanction for prosecution under Section 197(1), Criminal P.C.; nor even every act done by him while he is actually engaged in the performance of his official duties; but if the act complained of is directly concerned with his official duties so that, if questioned, it