O R D E R:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner, who is an accused, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.28 of 2015 on the file of the Special Judge for Trial of SPE & ACB Cases at Kurnool, for the alleged offences under Section 13(2) Read with Section 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

This Court has heard, Sri K.V. Simhadri, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

The gist of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is an accused in C.C.No.28 of 2015 on the file of Special Judge for Trial of SPE & ACB cases at Kurnool. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has retired from service. Learned counsel argues that in the absence of a proper sanction under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code or under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the prosecution cannot be launched or continued. He vehemently argues that the entire proceedings are an abuse of process of the Court. Learned counsel further argued that on the basis of the settled law that cognizance cannot be taken and that the sanction of the appropriate authority is mandatory. The absence of sanction is fatal to the prosecution case as per the learned counsel. Learned counsel pointed out that the history of the case and also the need for getting proper sanction from the appropriate authorities. A compilation of case laws are also filed which is referred to in the petition itself. Learned counsel argued that while no sanction is necessary for prosecution after the retirement of a public servant still while the public servant is in service sanction was necessary. If the sanction was declined, then the learned counsel argued that the retired public servant cannot be prosecuted after his retirement. For an offence committed while he was in service, the learned counsel argues that the sanction to prosecute is mandatory whether it is under Section 19 of the PC Act or under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. Learned counsel took this Court through the rationale behind Section 19 of the PC Act. It is his contention that the amendment Section 19 of the PC Act is also brought into service to protect the public servant even after retirement from vexatious and malicious prosecution. He relies upon the 69th report which is presented to the Rajya Sabha and the Lok Sabha in February, 2014 of the Standing Committee, on the Prevention of Corruption Act. Learned counsel argued that the protection should be extended to the petitioner. It is his contention that the lack of proper sanction is a fatal flaw and as such the entire prosecution should be quashed.

In reply to this, learned Special Public Prosecutor relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Prakash Singh Badal Vs. State of Punjab and others in Appeal (Civil) No.5636 of 2006; the judgment of the learned single judge of this Court in Criminal Petition No.9044 of 2018 and Criminal Petition No.9877 of 2010 to argue that prior sanction is not absolutely necessary. In the alternative he submits that this is a matter which must be decided during the course of trial. He also argues that sanction can be obtained at any point of time if at all it is necessary. This is a submission made in the alternative. In the case on hand, the learned Special Public Prosecutor argues that the accused was caught while taking an illegal gratification. It is his contention that this is not a part of the official duties. Apart from that he also submits that the amendment of the PC Act was introduced in July 2018 and the Calendar Case is of the year 2015. Relying upon the decision of the learned single judge in Criminal Petition No.9044 of 2018, learned Special Public Prosecutor argues that a single judge of this Court has held that the amendment to Section 19 of the PC Act came into force on 26.07.2018 and that it