BALAKRISHNAN RAVI MENON Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In our view, the High Court rightly relied upon the decision rendered by the Constitution Bench of this Court in R.S. Nayak V/s. A.R. Antulay, 1984 2 SCC 183 in arriving at the conclusion that the sanction u/s. 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the PC Act") was not required to be obtained in the facts of the present case.

(2.) Facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed on 8.11.1994 as Chairman and Managing Director of Goa Shipyard Ltd., a Central Government undertaking. Thereafter on 12.02.1999, a raid was conducted by CBI on the premises of the petitioner after registering a case against him. On 7.11.1999, the petitioner retired as Chairman and Managing Director of Goa Shipyard Ltd. Thereafter on 8.03.2000, he was appointed as Chairman and Managing Director of Transformers and Electricals Ltd. by the State of Kerala. While he was functioning as such, on 20.11.2000, a charge-sheet was submitted before the Special Judge, South Goa at Margoa on the basis of the FIR which was lodged on 5.02.1999. It was contended by the petitioner that without obtaining the previous sanction, prosecution under the PC Act cannot be launched against him. That contention was rejected by the trial court as well as the High Court by relying upon the decision in Antulay case. Hence, this petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the issue raised in this petition requires consideration because the finding given in Antulay case is obiter. In the said case, this Court specifically dealt with similar contention and observed thus: