RAMANAN S/O NARAYANA Vs. KRISHNAPRASAD ADYANTHAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE the petition is filed against the dismissal of complaint at pre-cognizance stage, notice to respondents is dispensed with.

(2.) THIS petition is directed against the order of dismissal of complaint passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Udupi, in PCR No.4/2012 dated 03/07/2012.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that in the complaint, the complainant himself has stated that the accused have demitted their office and they are no more public servants and as on the date of taking cognizance, if they are not public servants, no sanction is necessary. Sanction as contemplated under Section 19 is necessary only when a public servant discharges public duty and not against the person, who had demitted the office. In support of his contention, he has relied upon two decisions of the Apex Court: one in the matter of R.S. NAYAK Vs. A.R. ANTULAY ((1984) 2 Supreme Court Cases 183) and another in the matter of ABHAY SINGH CHAUTALA Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION reported in ((2011) 7 SCC 141) and submitted that the relevant time is the date on which the cognizance is taken. If accused are not public servants as on the date of taking cognizance, the question of obtaining sanction does not arise.