V PALANISAMY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been filed by the petitioner/accused challenging the order dated 31.3.2016 in Crl.M.P.No.273 of 2015 in Spl.C.C.No.11 of 2014 passed by the learned Special Judge for cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, in and by which the petition under Section 239 of Cr.P.C., filed by the petitioner for discharge from the case, was dismissed.

(2.) The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are as follows:-

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner retired from service from the post of Assistant District Treasury Officer at Dindigul on 30.06.2010. Thereafter, he was reemployed as Accountant at District Treasury Office, Coimbatore, on consolidated basis and he joined duty on 06.05.2013. Based on the complaint lodged by the defacto-complainant, a trap was conducted between 12.15 hours ad 12.30 hours on 26.09.2013 at his office and he was arrested on the same day at 2.00 pm, which is evident from the Arrest Memo. These facts would go to show that the petitioner was in service at the time of alleged offence; hence, he would fall within the definition of 'public servant' as defined under Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act; therefore, to prosecute the petitioner, prior sanction order ought to have been obtained from the competent authority by the prosecution, as required under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. But, no such sanction order was obtained by the prosecution in this case.