CHITTARANJAN DAS Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ACCUSED in T.R. Case No. 113 of 1999 of the Court of Special Judge (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar has filed this application with the prayer to quash the order dated 9.6.2004 passed by the Learned Special Judge.

(2.) TO resolve the controversy in support of the aforesaid prayer, it is not necessary to go into the details of the facts save and except mentioning that while serving as an O.A.S., Class -I in the State Secretariat at Bhubaneswar, petitioner faced a house -search by the Vigilance Police on 17.3.1992 followed with the investigation, during which the investigating agency opined that petitioner was in possession of disproportionate movable assets to the tune of Rs. 5,36,252.46 (five lakh thirty six thousand two hundred and fifty two rupees and forty six paise) and immovable assets of Rs. 5,58,752.46 (five lakh fifty eight thousand seven hundred and fifty two rupees and forty six paise). During pendency of investigation, i.e., about fag end of the investigation, sanction of the Government was applied for to prosecute the petitioner, but on 31.7.1998 Government refused to accord sanction. In the meantime, further investigation was continued. After completion of investigation, charge -sheet was submitted on 10.9.1998. On perusal of the charge -sheet, the Trial Court took cognizance of the offence on 2.8.1999. After his appearance in the Trial Court, accused -petitioner on 26.3.2004 filed application to call for the documents, i.e., refusal of the sanction order by the State Government and to discharge him. On 9.6.2004 Learned Special Judge (Vigilance) after hearing the parties, rejected that application on the ground that in view of the principle of law enunciated by the Apex Court in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh v. M.P. Gupta (2004) 27 OCR (SC) 315, an order of cognizance cannot be quashed on the ground of want of sanction when by the date of submission of charge sheet and refusal of order of sanction, the public servant had already retired from service. At this stage it may be indicated that petitioner stated in his date -chart that he retired from service on 30.6.1997.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner argued that sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is the backbone to sustain a prosecution against a public officer. In support of that submission, he relied on the ratio in the cases of P.A. Mohandas v. State of Kerala (2005) 30 OCR (SC) 355; Manoranjan Prasad Choudhary v. State of Bihar (2005) 30 OCR (SC) 370 and State of Goa v. Babu Thomas (2005) 32 OCR (SC) 553. On the other hand Learned Standing Counsel (Vigilance) referring to the case of M.P. Gupta (supra), N. Bhargavan Pillai (dead) by L.Rs. and Anr. v. State of Kerala AIR 2004 SC 2317 and Romesh Lal Jain v. Naginder Singh Rana and Ors. (2006) 33 OCR (SC) 90, argued that when the accused -petitioner retired from service much prior to completion of the investigation and on the date when charge -sheet was filed he was no more in service, therefore, refusal of sanction by the Government is non -consequential and the order of cognizance is not liable to fail.