1. Case called out.

2. Heard Dr. Krishna Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Aakash Prasad, alongwith Sri Yash Joshi and Mr. Yajush Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent-CBI.

3. Sri Aakash Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent-CBI has filed an affidavit of service, which is taken on record.

4. Dr. Krishna Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner, prays for adjournment of the case to enable him to file a rejoinder affidavit.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent-CBI has opposed this request and he has submitted that a counter affidavit was filed way back on 03.02.2026, after serving its copy on the learned counsel for the petitioner on 29.01.2026.

6. The matter was taken up by a coordinate Bench of this Court on22.10.2026, on which date the following order was passed:

“1. On the basis of urgency mentioned in the morning by Mr. Akash Prasad, learned Special Counsel for the CBI, the case is taken up. He informed that repeated phone calls were made to Dr. Krishna Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, but the calls went unanswered. A WhatsApp message was also sent, to which he has not responded.

2. He further submitted that on 07.02.2019, the following order was passed:

"Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the charge-sheet is submitted against the petitioner accused who is a retired Government Servant on 28.09.2018. Before the service of the said charge sheet on 26.07.2018, Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act was amended. In view of the amendment, even against a retired Government Officer, permission was required to be taken as per Section 19 of the P.C. Act. Prima facie the case for consideration is made out.

In view thereof, Sri Bireshwar Nath, learned counsel for C.?.?. prays for and is granted two weeks time to file reply, one week thereafter, to file rejoinder affidavit for the petitioner.

List on 11.03.2019.

Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner."

3. Learned Special Counsel submitted that the issue in question has already been addressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Telangana v. Managipet @ Mangipet Sarveshwar Reddy, (2019) 19 SCC 87, which was subsequently followed by this Court in Dr. Syed Fareed Haider Rizvi v. CBI thru. S.P./A.C.B., Lucknow, 2022 SCC OnLine All 784. He submitted that if the offence was committed prior to the amendment dated 26.07.2018 in the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the amended provision will not be applicable. He further informed that in the present case, the alleged incident took place between 2007 and 2010, whereas the applicant retired on 30.06.2009; therefore, the amendment to Section 19 of the PC Act is not applicable to the case of the applicant.

4. List this case on 30.10.2026 among the top ten cases.

5. The interim order granted earlier shall continue till the next date of listing. However, in case learned counsel for the applicant fails to assist the Court on the next date, the interim order shall stand vacated automatically.

6. Mr. Akash Prasad, learned Special Counsel, undertakes to inform learned counsel for the applicant about this order in writing.”

7. In these circumstances, I do not find it proper to adjourn the hearing of the case pending since 11.01.2019 and the request for adjournment is turned down. I proceed to hear the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties.

8. By means of the instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought quashing of a charge-sheet dated 28.09.2018 filed by CBI in furtherance of FIR bearing no. RC0062014A0008 dated 21.0