9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 1177X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant- Mr. D.L. Rangotha, against Order dated 02.02.2009 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Criminal Revision No. 165 of 2005. By the impugned order learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the Revision Application and affirmed the Order dated 27.12.2004 passed by the Special Judge, Lokayukta in Criminal Case No. 12 of 2004. While in service, the appellant was prosecuted under Sections 13(1)(a) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). Subsequently he retired. Before the trial court the appellant filed an application under Section 13 of the Act for his discharge on the ground that the State Government has not given sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cution under the Prevention of Corruption Act is necessary after the retirement of the public servant. Any other view will render the protection illusory. Situation may be different when sanction is refused by the competent authority after the retirement of the public servant as in that case sanction is not at all necessary and any exercise in this regard would be action in futility. Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State, accepts that case of the appellant is covered by the decision of this Court in Chittaranjan Das (supra) having regards to the fact that while the appellant was in service, the competent authority had rejected the request for sanction and now the appellant has retired from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 92 of the Standing Committee dated 14.02.1997 adopted subsequently by the Standing Committee of Ujjain Municipal Corporation whereby taking into consideration the opinion given by the State Government by its letter dated 17.12.1996, the Standing Committee agreed with the opinion and held that no prosecution be initiated against the petitioner. It is contended that in view of the subsequent Resolution dated 14.02.1997 the earlier sanction of the prosecution stands withdrawn. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not lay hand on any of the provision under which the competent authority can withdraw the sanction once granted under Section 19(1)(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Admittedly, the petitioner is an employee of Ujjain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
