TMI Blog1998 (8) TMI 647X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 31-12-1990 appellant retired from service but the investigation into the case continued. On 30-9-1992 the Vigilance Department submitted a charge-sheet against the appellant for the offence under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Act. 3. The case was since transferred to the Court of Special Judge, Bhubaneswar which was established under the provisions of Orissa Special Courts Act 1990. Appellant made a multi-pronged move against the prosecution. At the first instance he challenged the very Constitution of Special Court and then he raised a preliminary objection that he is not liable to be tried under the Act since he was no more a public servant. His challenge against the Constitution of the Special Court did not succeed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... point to any person who became a non-public servant, according to the counsel. 6. Among the provisions subsumed in the Chapter, Sections 8, 9, 12 and 15 deal with offences committed by persons who need not be public servants, though all such offences are intertwined with acts of public servants. The remaining provisions in the Chapter deal with offences committed by public servants. Section 7 of the Act contemplates offence committed by a person who expects to be public servant. 7. There is no indication anywhere in the above provisions that an offence committed by a public servant under the Act would vanish off from penal liability at the moment he demits his office as public servant. His being a public servant is necessary when he c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y fall under Sub-clause (c) and otherwise no prosecution can lie for any offence under this Act. A person who ceased to be public servant cannot be removed form any office, and hence it is contended that he cannot be prosecuted for any offence under the Act. 10. Section 19(1) of the Act is in pari materia with Section 6(1) of the preceding enactment i.e. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (the old Act). When a similar contention was raised before a three Judge Bench of this Court regarding Section 6 of the Old Act in S.A. Venkataraman v. The State 1958CriLJ254 , that contention was repelled. It was held thus: The words in Section 6(1) of the Act are clear enough and they must be given effect to. There is nothing in the words used in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of West Bengal etc. v. Manmal Bhutoria and Ors. etc., 1977CriLJ1164 . The Constitution Bench in K. Veeraswami v. Union of India and Ors., (1992)IILLJ53bSC , upheld the view that no sanction is required to prosecute a public servant after retirement. 11. Learned counsel, however, contended that the legal position must be treated as changed under the Prevention of Corruption Act of 1988 since Parliament has in the meanwhile changed the wording in Section 197 of the Code. The provision provided a check against launching prosecution proceedings against a public servant on the accusation of having committed an offence while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty. For such prosecution sanction of the Government is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s or vexatious prosecutions. It should be left to the Government to determine from that point of view the question of the expediency of prosecuting any public servant. Their Lordships after referring to the above Report have observed: It was in pursuance of this observation that the expression 'was' came to be employed after the expression 'is' to make the sanction applicable even in cases where a retired public servant is sought to be prosecuted. 13. It must be remembered that in spite of bringing such a significant change to Section 197 of the Code in 1973, the Parliament was circumspect enough not to change the wording in Section 19 of the Act which deals with sanction. The reason is obvious. The sanction c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|