JUDGMENT

1) By way of a revision application under Section 397 (read with Section 438 of BNSS) and Section 401 (read with Section 442 of BNSS) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “CrPC”), the applicant has prayed for quashing and setting aside the judgment and order dated 14.06.2016 passed by learned Special Judge, Dahod, in an application below Exh:6 in Special ACB Case No.04/2015 and thereby, be pleased to discharge the applicant from the charge under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

2) Heard Mr.Yogesh M. Thakkar, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. Bhatt, learned APP for the State.

3) Brief facts of the case are that, the complainant Bharat Kantibhai Parmar, filed a complaint at Dahod ACB Police Station, stating that his son Himmatkumar and Ushan, who passed in 8th std. And both of them wanted to take admission in Nutan Secondary School, at Limkheda Pali, in 9th Std. A fortnight ago, he met the Principal of Nutan Secondary High School, Mr. Suwan for admission, whereas, he asked for leaving certificate and marksheets of both the children and after seeing them, he said that he would admit their children in the school, but for that, he demanded a bribe of Rs.500/-. At that time, as the complainant did not have the money, Principal Mr. Suvan told to provide money later. Thereafter, on 24.6.2013, when the complainant went to the school to meet his children, principal Mr. Suvan demanded Rs. 500/- and further told that if he did not pay the money, he would cancel the admission of both the children. Therefore, the complainant told that he would give within 1-2 days. However, the Principal asked to give the money on 26.06.2023 within school hours. However, the complainant did not want to pay the money, he approached ACB Police Station, Dahod and lodged the complaint. The raiding party made a trap and during trap, the accused caught red handed while accepting bribe from the complainant.

4) Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the learned Sessions Court has committed error in rejecting the discharge application though there was no valid sanction from the competent authority. While the applicant was in government service, sanction was refused twice by the authority concerned, however, subsequently, chargesheet came to be filed and cognizance has been taken. Hence, he has requested to allow the present revision application as prayed for. In support of the arguments, learned counsel for the applicant has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chittaranjan Das Vs. State of Orissa, reported in 2011 Cri.L.J 4306 and argued that once the sanction was sought and refused by the competent authority to prosecute against the public servant while he was in service, he cannot be prosecuted after retirement. Herein, twice sanction was rejected by the authority and subsequently he was exonerated from departmental proceedings. Chargesheet was filed and cognizance has been taken. Hence, Mr. Thakkar has submitted that impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Court is against the settled principle of law, which requires to be quashed and set aside.

5) Per contra, learned APP for the respondent State has opposed the present revision application and submitted that, the applicant at the relevant point of time, was public servant has accepted bribe other than his legal remuneration. There is no bar in taking cognizance after retirement of a public servant. Hence, merely the accused was retired and subsequently, cognizance has been taken, then it is not a ground to discharge the accused as after retirement, sanction has been sought for and in absence of valid sanction, proceedings initiated under Section 19 of the Act. Furthermore, present applicant was caught red handed while accepting bribe in the pretext of giving school admission in his school as he was Principal in that school, which is not permissible. Ms. Bhatt has produced GR da