The requirement of sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is not applicable if the accused has ceased to be a public servant before cognizance is taken.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.

1. The petitioner has challenged the criminal proceeding initiated against him in T.R. Case No.375 of 2007, arising out of Cuttack Vigilance P.S. Case No.40 of 2002 dated 23.09.2002, which is pending before the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Angul, along with the charge-sheet dated 31.03.2005 submitted in connection with the aforesaid vigilance case.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

i. The petitioner is a retired Government servant. On 23.09.2002, Cuttack Vigilance P.S. Case No. 40 of 2002 was registered against him alleging commission of offences under Sections 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on the allegation of possession of disproportionate assets. The quantum of alleged disproportionate assets is stated by the petitioner to be Rs. 30,21,063/-.

ii. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted on 31.03.2005 and cognizance of the offences was taken on 29.04.2006.

iii. The case was initially pending before the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Bhubaneswar. Thereafter, it stood transferred to the Court of the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Cuttack and subsequently to the Court of the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Angul, where it is presently pending as T.R. Case No. 375 of 2007.

iv. Aggrieved by the continuance of the said proceeding, the petitioner has fieled the present petition seeking quashing of the same.

II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner made the following submissions in support of his contentions:

i. The petitioner submitted that the allegation of disproportionate assets is based on an erroneous computation. It was contended that the Investigating Officer, while calculating the alleged disproportionate assets, aggregated the income and assets of the petitioner’s wife, son and father, who are stated to be independent income-tax assessees, with that of the petitioner.

ii. It was further contended that certain bank account balances belonging to another individual bearing a similar name were wrongly included in the petitioner’s assets.

iii. Learned counsel submitted that if the income of the independent family members is excluded and the petitioner’s lawful sources of income, including agricultural income and compensation received towards land acquisition, are properly taken into account, the alleged disproportionate assets would either not subsist or would fall within permissible limits.

iv. Learned counsel also submitted that the proceeding has remained pending for more than two decades without commencement of trial, thereby violating the petitioner’s right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It was contended that despite submission of charge-sheet in the year 2005 and cognizance being taken in 2006, charge has not yet been framed.

v. It was further submitted that the delay is attributable to the prosecution, inter alia, on account of non-supply of certain relevant documents despite directions of the trial court.

vi. In support of the contention regarding violation of the right to speedy trial, learned counsel placed reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court inHussainara Khatoon (I) v. State of Bihar , (1980) 1 SCC 81,