9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 regarding the liability of a retired public servant for offences committed while in service. Analysis: The judgment dealt with the case of an IPS Officer who faced charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 even after retiring from service. The appellant argued that since the Act did not explicitly mention prosecution of retired public servants, he should not be liable. He relied on Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which requires sanction for prosecution of public servants, including former public servants. However, the court noted that the definition of "public servant" in the Act did not exclude retired individuals, and the Act did not specify immunity for public servants post-retirement. The court analyzed various sections of the Act and highlighted that while some provisions cover offences by non-public servants, others specifically address offences by public servants. It emphasized that the Act does not absolve a public servant of liability for offences committed while in office, even after retirement. The court also discussed Section 19(1) of the Act, which mandates previous sanction for prosecution of public servants, and clarified that a retired public servant can still be prosecuted under the Act. The appellant argued that changes in Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure necessitated a different interpretation of the Act for retired public servants. However, the court referred to previous judgments and the Law Commission's recommendations to emphasize the continued applicability of the Act to retired public servants. It noted that Parliament's decision not to amend Section 19 of the Act indicated a deliberate choice to maintain the distinction between public servants accused of offences related to official duties and those facing charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Ultimately, the court concluded that a public servant, even after retirement, could be prosecuted for offences committed while in service under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It upheld the decisions of the Special Court and the High Court in rejecting the appellant's preliminary objections, thereby dismissing the appeal.
|
