9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The judgment deals with the issue of whether prosecution of a public servant after retirement without sanction from the State Government is legal under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Summary: The Appellant, a member of the Orissa Administrative Service, faced prosecution for possession of disproportionate assets after retirement. The Vigilance Department sought sanction from the State Government, which was refused. Despite this, a charge-sheet was filed and the Special Judge took cognizance of the offence. The Appellant challenged the prosecution on the grounds of lack of sanction. The High Court initially disposed of the application with liberty to raise the issue at the time of charge framing. The trial court dismissed the Appellant's application for discharge, stating that prior sanction was not necessary post-retirement. The High Court upheld this decision, allowing the Appellant to challenge the prosecution during trial. The Supreme Court clarified that once a public servant ceases to be so at the time of cognizance, no sanction is required under the Prevention of Corruption Act. However, in cases where Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure applies, the requirement may differ. The Court emphasized that sanction is a safeguard against frivolous prosecution and should not shield the guilty. In this case, the State Government had refused sanction while the Appellant was in service, and the Vigilance Department filed the charge-sheet post-retirement. The Court held that prosecution without prior sanction, when refused while the public servant was in service, is an abuse of process. The judgment cited a previous case where sanction was sought and refused post-retirement, distinguishing it from the present scenario. The Court found the prosecution to be an abuse of process, as the assets in question were not disproportionately high, and the State Government had observed no prima facie case against the Appellant. The High Court was criticized for not deciding the issues itself, as the facts were clear. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashing the Appellant's prosecution.
|
