VENKITCHALAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CRIMINAL R.P.No.2457/10 is by accused Nos.4 and 8 and CRIMINAL .R.P.No. 3137/10 is by the 3rd accused in C.C.No.1/08 on the file of the Special Judge for C.B.I. Cases. Lakshadweep.

(2.) ACCUSED, nine in number, are proceeded with for offences punishable under Section 120B read with Sections 468 and 417 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 7,12,13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short "the Act"), on a report filed by the Inspector of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Kochi.

(3.) ANNEXURE Al charge-sheet would disclose that sanction has been accorded by the competent authority under Section 19(1)(c) of the Act against accused 2,3 and 9. As on the date when the charge was laid before the court, accused 4 and 8, the revision petitioners in Criminal R.P No.2457/10 had retired from service and as such, for their prosecution for the offences, no sanction under Section 19(1)(c) of the Act is needed, has also been recorded in the final report presented before the court. Though the aforesaid petitioners (accused 4 and 8) have raised a plea that want of sanction under Section 19(1)(c) of the Act is fatal to their prosecution, admittedly, as both of them, retired from service when the final report was presented before the court, there is no merit in that objection canvassed to impeach the order of the court below, declining their plea of discharge (see Parkash Singh Badal v. State of Punjab.1 So much so, in the present case, the short question that emerges for consideration is whether sanction under Section 197 of the Code is required to prosecute the revision petitioners (accused 3, 4 and 8) in these two revisions.