ORDER :

The present criminal petition is filed seeking to call for the records pertaining and in connection with C.C. No. 39 of 2019 pending on the file of I Additional Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases cum V ACJ Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and quash the same.

2. Heard Mr. D. Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Ch. Siddhartha Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. T.L. Nayan Kumar, learned Standing Counsel-cum-Special Public Prosecutor for TS ACB appearing on behalf of respondent.

3. Facts of the Case

i) The Petitioner herein joined the Government service as a Civil Assistant Surgeon on 03.03.1986. He was subsequently promoted as Deputy Civil Surgeon in 2006 and in 2008 was promoted as a Civil Surgeon. In November 2011 he was appointed as the District Medical and Health Officer, Warangal District. The Petitioner retired from the service on 30.04.2015.

ii) According to the Respondent, credible information was received by ACB, Warangal regarding disproportionate assets known to the sources of income of the Petitioner. Therefore, a case in Crime No. 5/ACB-WRL/2015 was registered on 11.03.2015 for offences committed under Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter ‘the Act, 1988’). Subsequently, the Petitioner was arrested on 12.03.2015.

iii) Investigation, searches and seizures were conducted and alleged incriminating documents were seized. The authorities allege that the income of the accused was computed as Rs.3,70,82,122/- and his expenditure was computed as Rs. 5,00,03,103/-. Further, it is alleged that the Petitioner was in possession of assets valued at Rs. 2,42,56,271/-. Therefore, according to the prosecution, the Petitioner was found in possession of disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs. 3,71,77,252/-.

iv) Based on the investigation and the material seized, a charge sheet was filed and cognizance was taken by the Special Court on 19.08.2019. The same came to be numbered as C.C. No. 39 of 2019.

v) The Act, 1988 was amended by the enactment of The Prevention of Corruption (Amendment Act), 2018 (hereinafter ‘the Amendment Act, 2018). It is the contention of the Petitioner that the provisions of the Amendment Act, 2018 are applicable to him and the procedure prescribed under the Amendment Act, 2018 was not followed. Therefore, the Petitioner seeks quashing of C.C. No. 39 of 2019 in the present case.

4. Contentions of the Petitioner

i) The Amendment Act, 2018 came into force from 26.07.2018. In the present case, charge sheet was filed and cognizance was taken on 19.08.2019. Therefore, the Amendment Act, 2018 being in force should have been followed by the Special Court.

ii) Section 19 of the Amendment Act, 2018 applies retrospectively. Section 19 of the Amendment Act, 2018 mandates that prior sanction from the Government is required even in cases of retired public servants.

iii) Though the Petitioner retired from service on 30.04.2015, sanction from the Government should have been obtained in terms of Section 19 of the Amendment Act, 2018.

iv) The Special Court could not have taken cognizance as no sanction was obtained in terms of the amended Section 19 which was in force during the filing of the charge sheet.

v) Relying on Padmakar v. Abdul Rehman Antulay, (1984) 2 SCC 184, it was contended that the relevant date for examining existence of valid sanction is the date of taking cognizance.

vi) In the absence of a valid sanction under Section 19 of the Act, 1988, no cognizance can be taken and proceedings shall be quashed. Reliance was placed on Nanjappa v. State of Karnataka, (2015) 14 SCC 186, P.A. Mohan Das v. State of Kerala, (2003) 9 SCC 504, Manoranjan Prasad Choudhary v. State of Bihar, (2002) 10 SCC 688, Asmathunnisa v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2011) 11 SCC 259 and D. Devaraja v. Owais Sabeer Hussain, (2020) 7 SCC 695.

vii) The Special Judg