ORDER:

The present Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), praying to call for the record pertaining to C.C.No.19 of 2018 on the file of the Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Nellore, and quash the same against the petitioner/accused officer, relating to Crime No.02/RCA-TCT/2016 of ACB, Tirupati Range, Tirupati, registered for the offences under Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter called, „the PC Act‟, for short).

2. Heard Sri K.G.Krishna Murthy, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Sri K.Rama Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.M.Subhani, learned Standing Counsel for ACB and Special Public Prosecutor, appearing for the 2nd respondent.

3. The 2nd respondent, who is the Inspector of Police, Anti- Corruption Bureau, Tirupati Range, Tirupati, Chittoor District, registered the case in Crime No.02/RCA-TCT/2016 of ACB, Tirupati Range, Tirupati, against the petitioner/accused officer for the aforesaid offences. After due investigation, he laid the charge sheet alleging that he conducted check against the accused officer from 09.06.1979, i.e., the date of entering into service till 31.12.2010. During the said check, the accused officer while working as Deputy Executive Officer of Sri Kodandaramaswamy Temple, TTD, Tirupati, Chittoor District, acquired assets in his name and his family members, valued at Rs.80,39,509/- (as detailed in Annexure-A). The income derived by the accused officer arrived at Rs.1,14,20,995/- (Annexure-B) and the expenditure of the accused officer was arrived at Rs.76,57,321/- (Annexure-C). During the investigation, the accused officer is found to have acquired assets disproportionate to his income known sources of income to a tune of Rs.42,75,835/- for which he cannot satisfactorily account for and this leads to irresistible conclusion that he acquired the aforesaid assets by corrupt and illegal means. It is also asserted in the charge sheet that the accused officer is retired from service on 31.12.2016 and no sanction for prosecution is required. The said charge sheet was numbered as C.C.No.19 of 2018 on the file of the Court of Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Nellore.

4. The present Criminal Petition is filed to quash the proceedings in the aforesaid Calendar Case on the ground that under Section 19 of the PC Act, no Court shall take cognizance for the offences under Sections 7, 11, 13 and 15 of the PC Act alleged to have been committed by the accused officer except with the previous sanction (save as otherwise provided in the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013). Amendment to Section 19 of the PC Act came into force on 26.07.2018 and the Court has taken cognizance on 16.11.2018. As such, the Court is having no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence. Hence, prays to quash the proceedings in the said Calendar Case.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused officer relies on the judgment of this Court as well as the Apex Court in Dilawar Singh v. Parvinder Singh and others1 for the proposition that no Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 of the PC Act alleged to have been committed by a public servant, except with the previous sanction and the sanction for prosecution has to be granted with respect to specific accused and only after sanction has been granted that the Court gets the competence to take cognizance of the

1 (2005) 12 SCC 709 = AIR 2006 SC 389

aforesaid offences and if the Court took cognizance of the offence, it amounts to without jurisdiction and whole invalid.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Surinderjit Singh Mand and others v. State of Punjab and others2 wherein it is held as follows:

"The law declared by this Court emerging from the judgments referred to hereinabove, leaves no room for any doubt that under Section 197 of the Code and/or sanction man