P.V. VENKATAVARADAN Vs. THE STATE OF TAMILNADU BY THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIGILANCE AND ANTICORRUPTION, VELLORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHETHER prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, can be launched against a retired Government Servant is the question raised in these petitions. The petitioner was formerly a Chief Educational Officer in the Madras Education Service. He retired from service on 24th November, 1970. Three cases were registered against him by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption on 22nd October, 1971 which is nearly 11 months after the retirement of the petitioner. Later, i.e., on 5th December, 1973 charge sheets were filed against him. The contention of the petitioner is that since he has retired from service, he can (sic) be prosecuted under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. In support of this contention, Mr. S. Pichai, the learned counsel for the petitioner, cites the decision in Manmal v. State of West Bengal, 1973 (2) S.C.R. 173. An identical question arose for consideration there and a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court held that a public servant who has ceased to be a public servant can neither be prosecuted in respect of any scheduled offence (under the West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) Act, 1949), nor of an offence under S. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and as such the trial of such a person cannot be in accordance with the provisions of those two statutes.

(2.) THE learned Advocate -General appearing for the State opposes the petitions and contends that the petitioner can be validly prosecuted under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act in spite of the fact that he had retired from service even before the First Information Report was registered. The Advocate -General contends that some of the decisions of the Supreme Court lend support to the view that the retirement of a Government servant cannot have any impact in so far as a prosecution launched against him under the Prevention of Corruption Act is concerned. Secondly, he would urge that the purpose of the Act has to be borne in mind when considering the contention of the petitioner. According to the Advocate -General the statute has been enacted to put down corruption and effectively deal with delinquent Government Servants and as such, the policy intended for the benefit of the public should not be allowed to be defeated by trivial technicalities. The further argument is that if the petitioner's contention is to be upheld, it would then embolden officials on the verge of retirement to indulge in corruption with impunity and then claim exemption from prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act on the ground of retirement.

(3.) THOUGH the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court has held that once a public servant has ceased to be one due to retirement, the special provisions contained in the Prevention of Corruption Act will not apply to him, I find the view of the Supreme Court seems to be at variance with that view. In S.A. Venkataraman v. The State, 1958 S.C.R. 1037 the Supreme Court had held that in respect of proceedings under S. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 no sanction for prosecution under S. 6 of the Act was necessary, if the accused had retired from service by the time the charge sheet was laid. This view has been followed, in K. Mohanlal Shah v. State of Bombay, (1961) (2) S.C.J. 649. It is pertinent to point out that in both those cases though the officers against whom prosecutions had been launched after they had retired from service, yet, their prosecution under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act was not challenged. The challenge was only focused on the question of sanction. Mr. Pichai contend for the petitioner that since the question of the competency of the prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act was not raised before the Supreme Court in those two cases it must be held that the judgments of the Supreme Court will not apply to the facts of the instant case and instead, it is the Calcutta case that would directly apply. There are several fallacies in the contention put forth by Mr. Pichai.