MANOHAR GANPATRAO KAPSIKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the parties.

(2.) Learned Senior counsel opened his arguments with the submission that the case against the applicant (accused No. 20) cannot proceed further for want of sanction. He invited my attention to Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 which opens with the words, "No Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 alleged to have been committed by a public servant, except with the previous sanction".

(3.) This submission of the learned Senior counsel is vehemently opposed by Shri V.D. Godbharle, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and in my opinion, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor is right in submitting that the sanction as contemplated under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is not necessary in respect of the applicant (accused No. 20). Applicant (accused No. 20) Manohar Ganpat Kapsikar stood retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.3.1992; whereas the charge sheet is presented in the court of law on 13.9.2004.