1. 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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document