STATE Vs. A N DHYANESWARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been filed by the petitioner against the common order passed by the learned Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai in Cr.M.P. Nos. 96 and 549 of 2002 in C.C. No. 9 of 2001 dated 7-1-2003 in allowing the above petitions filed by the respondents herein.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are as follows : The first respondent herein was the Managing Director and Chairman of Tamil Nadu Minerals (TAMIN) between 1991 and 1996, the second respondent is his son and the third respondent is a close associate of the 1st respondent. The petitioner CBI filed a charge-sheet on 14-3-2001 wherein it was alleged that Al the first respondent herein has amassed wealth disproportionate to his known sources of income to the tune of Rs. 7,34,58,2397- for which he could not satisfactorily account for. Al was charge sheeted for the offence under Sections 420 and Section 13(2) r/w 13(l)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under Section 109, IPC. A2 son of Al and A3 a close associate of Al who are alleged to have facilitated Al in securing assets and purchasing them in their names as Benami of Al, knowing fully well that they do not have income to acquire these assets and therefore A2 and A3 were charge-sheeted for the offence of abetment under Section 109, IPC r/w 13(2) 13(l)(e) of P.C. Act, 1988. The accused filed discharge petitions before the trial Court on the ground that no sanction was obtained before filing of the charge-sheet and on that ground Al was discharged by the trial Court and since A-1 was discharged, the trial court discharged A2 and A3 also on the ground that since the main accused Al cannot be proceeded further, it is not now possible to proceed further against A2 and A3 also. Aggrieved over the said order, this revision has been filed by C.B.I.

(3.) Learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases would contend that the discharge of Al on the ground that no sanction was obtained before filing of charge-sheet is not legally maintainable since no sanction was necessary against a Government Servant who was not in service and the discharge of A2 and A3 on the ground that the main accused has been discharged is also not sustainable in law. A perusal of the order of the learned trial Judge would show that on the day when the charge-sheet was filed, the first accused was not a Public Servant since he had been compulsorily retired by the Government and therefore no sanction was necessary. But subsequently the validity of the order of compulsory retirement was challenged by the first accused in O.A. No. 594 of 2002 before the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Tribunal has passed an order on 9-10-2002 and thereby quashed the order of compulsory retirement passed against the first accused and directed the Government of India and the Government of Tamil Nadu to reinstate the first accused forthwith with all consequential benefits. According to the trial Court, the first accused has become 'still in service' and the order of compulsory retirement is no longer in force and by order dated 9-10-2002 of the CAT the first accused has got now revived his position as a public servant within the meaning of Sec. 2(c) of the P.C. Act, 1988 and therefore the sanction by the Government as required under Section 197, Cr.P.C., ought to have been obtained for filing of the charge-sheet. The trial Court also gave liberty to the prosecution to get sanction to prosecute Al and others.