LAWS(MPH)-2004-3-4

DINANATH VIMAL Vs. STATE OF M P

Decided On March 29, 2004
DINANATH VIMAL Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 13-3-2003 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain in Criminal Case No. 8/02. By the order impugned, learned Court below has taken the cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short referred to as 'act') and has registered a criminal case against the applicant. Special Police Establishment Lokayukt, Ujjain on a written report made by Abdul Salam Khan on 14-2-2000 registered a criminal case against the applicant at Crime No. 18/2000. After completing investigation, police had filed Khatma report under Section 173 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'code' for short ). Learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 20-6-2002 came to the conclusion that prima facie a case was made out against the applicant, therefore did not accept the Khatma Report and directed that the case diary along with the order-sheet, dated 20-6-2000 be sent to the Law and Legislative Affairs Department for taking necessary steps to obtain sanction for prosecution of applicant. That order was successfully challenged by the applicant in this Court in Misc. Criminal Case No. 2472 of 2002. By the order dated 1-10-02, application preferred under Section 482 of Code by the applicant was allowed by Hon'ble Kochar, J. , and it was ordered as under :-

(2.) AFTER the order was passed by this Court on 1-10-2002, by the order impugned learned Court below has taken cognizance holding that no prior sanction is required as the applicant retired from Government service on 31-12-2002 on attaining age of superannuation.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for applicant relying on decision of Supreme Court in R. Balakrishna Pillai v. State of Kerala and Anr. , reported in AIR 1996 SC 901, submitted that even after retirement sanction under Section 197 of the Code is required and in absence of necessary sanction, the cognizance taken by the Court below is illegal and no prosecution or criminal case can get underway against the applicant without the prior sanction as envisaged under Section 197 of the Code. He, therefore, prayed that the order impugned be quashed.