Sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act or Section 197 of the Cr. P. C. is not required to prosecute a public servant who has been compulsorily retired for alleged criminal misconduct committed while in office, provided that the misconduct was not committed in the discharge of official duties.

( 1 ) IN this revision petition the preliminary question involved is whether in case of a public servant who has been compulsorily retired, when he is sought to be prosecuted for offence under Section 120-B, I. P. C. and u/ss. 13 (1) (d) (ii) r/w. 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, a sanction as precondition for his prosecution u/s. 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 or Section 197, Cr. P. C. , is essential. The petitioner in this case was a member of Indian Administrative Service. At the relevant time of offence he was employed as Managing Director of M. P. Leather Development Corporation. The period was the year 1988-89. The allegation is that during that period he committed criminal misconduct punishable under Sections 13 (1) (d) r/w. 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Section 13 (1) (d) of this Act declared the following conducts of the public servant as criminal misconducts :"13. Criminal misconduct by a public servant.- (1) A public servant is said to commit the offence or criminal misconduct.- (A) to (c ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (D) if he,- (I) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or (II) by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or (III) while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest; or (E ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "section 13 (2) provides extent of punishment for the said misconduct.

( 2 ) SECTION 19 of this Act makes sanction of the Central Government or the State Government or the authority competent to remove him from office as essential if at the time of taking cognizance by the Court of such an offence of criminal misconduct, he is employed in connectipm with affairs of the Union of the State and not removable from office save with the sanction of Central or State Government respectively. In other cases the sanction of authority competent to remove him is sufficient.

( 3 ) IN the present case the allegation of mis-conduct against the petitioner is that in his capacity as Managing Director during the year 1988-89 he made purchases of certain stores such as Gumti, tune resset, sewing machine, Shoelast machine, Cobbler's tools etc. without following the procedure prescribed by the Rules and Regulations or instructions and also paid exorbitant sums of money as price for the same much beyond the market price. He allegedly committed financial irregularities for illegal benefit for himself and for others fromwhom he allegedly made the purchases. The prosecution against him was started before the Special Court on 2-7- 1992 by presenting a charge sheet under Section 173, Cr. P. C. by the Economic Officers Wing of the Police.

( 4 ) THIS accused was compulsorily retired by the Central Government by order dated 4-1-1989 with effect from 10-1-1989. He approached the Central Administrative Tribunal and challenged that order in case No. 130/89. The Tribunal vide order dated 25-1-1990 set aside the order of his compulsory retirement, but, the Union of India presented an appeal before the Supreme Court of India. The Tribunal's order was stayed by the Supreme Court till the final decision of the appeal on 4-3-1991. It was thereafter that the challan against him was filed on 2-7-1991 for offence under Section 120b-, I. P. C. r/w S. 13 (1) (d) (ii) r/w 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. No sanction has been granted by the Central Government or any of the authority to prosecute him for that offence either under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 or under Section 197 of the Cr. P. C.

( 5 ) BY the impugned order dated 19-3-1993 the Special Judge, Bhopal dismissed his objection that the prosecution could not be started nor continued without pro