The requirement of sanction for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is related to the time of the alleged offence and does not apply if the accused was not holding office at that time.

Rakesh Saksena, J.

1. Petitioner, an IAS Officer of M.P. Cadre, has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the criminal proceedings pending against him in Special Case No. 2/2005, before the Court of Special Judge (under Prevention of Corruption Act), Bhopal, for the offences punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Special Police Establishment, Lokayukt, Bhopal, filed charge-sheet on 18-1-2005 in the Court of learned Special Judge, Bhopal, in relation to offences registered at Crime No. 35/1998. As many as 14 accused persons were named in the charge-sheet. However, the charge-sheet was filed only against 10 persons. Since the sanction for prosecution was refused by the State Government as well as by the Government of India for the petitioner, he was not charge-sheeted. Learned Special Judge on the basis of chargesheet took cognizance of the offences on 18-1-2005.

3. At the relevant time, i.e., from 4-12-1995 to 2-11-1996 petitioner was posted as Managing Director of M.P. Urja Vikas Nigam. When charge-sheet was filed by the Special Police Establishment, the petitioner was a member of Indian Administrative Service.

4. In the charge-sheet filed on 18-1-2005 though petitioner was not arrayed as an accused, yet in various places references were made to him and in the last para of charge-sheet it was mentioned that a supplementary charge-sheet shall be filed against him on getting sanction for prosecution against him. Petitioner filed an application before the Court of learned Special Judge praying that all the references to Mukesh Kacker as accused mentioned in the charge-sheet filed in the case be deleted since the appropriate Governments had refused the sanctions under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act for the prosecution of petitioner. It was alleged that the State Government of Madhya Pradesh vide letter No. 8/95/99/21, ka (abhi) dated 22-6-2001 issued from the Department of Law and Legislative Affairs addressed to DIG, Special Police Establishment, Bhopal had conveyed the refusal of sanction against the petitioner. Similarly, letter No. 107/1/2002-A.V.D.-1, dated 3-9-2003 was issued by the Director (Vigilance) addressed to Chief Secretary, Government of M.P., conveying the refusal of Government of India to give sanction for prosecution against petitioner. This fact was also communicated by Smt. Ranjana Choudhary, Principal Secretary (GAD), Government of M.P., vide letter dated 6-10-2003 to the Director General of Special Police Establishment, Bhopal. However, before the application filed by the petitioner for deleting his name could be decided, petitioner, took voluntary retirement on 16-4-2007 and, subsequent to it, i.e., on 25-4-2007 Special Police Establishment filed a supplementary charge-sheet against him.

5. The petitioner by filing an application on 25-4-2007 challenged the validity of filing supplementary charge-sheet against him on the ground that sanction for prosecution has been refused by the Competent Authority when earlier charge-sheet was filed, therefore, the respondent-Special Police Establishment was not justified in filing the supplementary charge-sheet merely because the petitioner had sought voluntary retirement and that there was no ground to file supplementary charge-sheet in the absence of any further investigation.

6. After hearing the arguments of the petitioner, learned Special Judge, vide order dated 16-8-2007 rejected the objections raised by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner has challenged his prosecution before this Court.

7. Shri Ravindra Shrivastava, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the Trial Court passed the impugned order mechanically without appreciating the facts and the law in the right earnest. He submitted that the Trial Court wron