ORDER

1. The petitioners have filed the present Revision Petition under section 397 read with section 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 5.1.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act, 1998), whereby an interlocutory application filed by these petitioners has been dismissed.

The facts of the case, in short, are as under : --

2. The petitioners have filed a private complaint under section 200 of Cr.P.C. on 22.6.2012 in the Court of Special Judge (the PC Act) for alleged offences punishable under section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter will be referred to as '' PC Act, 1988'' for convenience) and section 107, 109, 415, 420 and 120-B of IPC. Respondents No. 2 to 7 are public servants and respondents No. 8 to 21 are private persons arrayed as accused in the complaint. Along with the complaint, an application under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. was also filed. The petitioners have alleged that for the implementation ‘Common Services Center Scheme'', respondents No.2 to 7 abused their official position and, in connivance with other private persons i.e. respondents No.8 to 21, illegally secured Rs.25 Crores from unemployed youths of this State. Vide order dated 3.7.2012, the learned Special Judge has dismissed the application filed under section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. Thereafter petitioners being the complainants have examined themselves and 11 other witnesses under section 200 of Cr.P.C. Since 2012, the complaint has been pending awaiting the sanction for prosecution by the Government as contemplated under section 19 of the PC Act, 1988.

3. The petitioners moved an application on 2.11.2012 seeking exemption from obtaining sanction for prosecution but the same came to be dismissed on 9.11.2012. Thereafter, the petitioners tried to get over the requirement of sanction for prosecution by moving an application on 3.8.2016 that the requirement of sanction be relaxed at least against the private accused persons i.e., respondent No.8 to 21. The learned Special judge rejected the said application vide order dated 6.9.2016.

4. The petitioners again filed an application on 22.12.2017 contending that due to a change in their official position by way of transfer to another department, no sanction is required in respect of the prosecution of respondents No.2 to 7. Vide order dated 22.1.2018, learned Special Judge dismissed the application. Being dissatisfied with the above rejection the petitioners filed the Criminal Revision Before this Court. Vide order dated 27.3.2018 this Court set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the learned special judge for passing fresh order. Meanwhile, the Central Government has amended the sanction under section 19 of the PC Act, w.e.f. 26.7.2018. Vide order dated 5.1.2019, learned Special Judge has dismissed the application in view of the amended provision of sanction 19 of the PC Act, hence, this petition before this Court.

Submission of counsel for the petitioners.

5. Learned counsel argues that the learned Special judge has wrongly dismissed the application without considering the effect of the amendments brought in sanction under section 19 of the PC Act and the law laid down by the apex Court in the case of Abhay Singh Chautala v. Central Bureau of Investigation [(2011) 7 SCC 141]. Learned counsel further submits that the status of respondent No.2 to 7 have been changed by their transfer from an earlier department, where they said to have committed the offence by way of transfer to another Government department or corporation, hence, they are no more in the said post, therefore, now no sanction is required, thus impugned order be set aside and the Special Judge be directed to take cognizance against the respondent Nos. 2 to 7 without insisting for the sanction. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed heavy reliance on the judgment passed by Apex Court in the case of the State of Rajasthan v. Tejmal Chou