JUDGMENT :

Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Sections 397(2) & 401 of Cr.P.C. r/w Section 27 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, seeking to call for the records and set aside the order dated 12.10.2021 made in Crl.M.P.No.635 of 2021 in C.C.No.1 of 2020 on the file of the learned Special Judge for trial of cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act at Chennai.

(The case has been heard through video conference)

1. This revision has been filed against the dismissal of the petition filed under Section 239 Cr.P.C. to discharge the petitioner from the charges.

2. The facts leading to the filing of the revision are as follows:

(i) Totally there are three accused. The petitioner is arrayed as A3. A1, was working as Senior Regional Manager in the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited (TASMAC), Chennai Region. A2 was working as Salesman in TASMAC Shop and he was acting as a duty driver to A1. The petitioner/A3 was working as Supervisor in the TASMAC shop, and he was removed from service at the time of occurrence.

(ii) The de facto complainant was working as Supervisor of TASMAC shop No.4538, Kancheepuram South. Consequent to the closure of various TASMAC shops, which were located in the Highways, excess salesmen were sought to be posted as additional salesmen in the above said TASMAC shop. So the de facto complainant approached A1 and requested him not to post any additional strength to the above said TASMAC shop.

(iii) However, A1 appointed one A.Dharmalingam as a salesmen, then the de facto complainant approached A1 to cancel the said posting order, for that, A1 demanded Rs.20,000/- as bribe and instructed the de facto complainant to contact the petitioner/A3 in this regard. The de facto complainant contacted the petitioner over phone, and he asked the de facto complainant to come to SRM office on 28.02.2018 with the bribe money of Rs.20,000/- as demanded by A1 and he will handover the same to A1.

(iv) Not willing to pay bribe, the de facto complainant lodged a complaint before the respondent police. Based on that, a crime was registered and a trap proceeding was arranged on 02.03.2018, and on the instructions given by A1, bribe money was handed over to A2, the driver of A1, and he was caught red handed and they were arrested.

(v) After completion of the investigation, the final report has been filed charging A1 for offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. A2 was charged for offences punishable under Section 12 r/w Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 109 of IPC and Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. So far as this petitioner/A3 is concerned, he was charged for offences punishable under Section 12 r/w Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 109 of I.P.C.

(vi) Thereafter, to discharge him from the above said charges, the petitioner/A3 approached the trial Court by filing a petition under Section 239 Cr.P.C, contending that petitioner being a public servant, prior sanction for prosecution was necessary as contemplated under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). Without obtaining prior sanction, no cognizance can be taken against the petitioner.

(vii) The Trial Court dismissed the said petition holding that at the time of committing the offence, the petitioner was removed from service and he was not in public service on that date. Hence, no sanction is required and further held that since the petitioner has been charged under Section 12 of the Act, Section 19 of the Act is not applicable.

3. Now challenging the above order, the present revision has been filed.

4. Mr.S.Karthikeyan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was working as a Supervisor in TASMAC. Even though he was removed from service at the time of occurrence, subsequently he was reinstated in the service from July, 2008