Friday, December 6, 2019

No sanction is required to prosecute retired public servant in graft case, rules apex court
AmitAnand.Choudhary@timesgroup.com

New Delhi:06.12.2019

The Supreme Court on Thursday said there is no need to seek sanction before prosecuting a retired government employee in a corruption case, holding that such protection is available to a public servant only during his service.

Abench of Justices U U Lalit, Indu Malhotra and Krishna Murari said the requirement of sanction under Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act is only for serving government employees and there is no bar to initiate prosecution after retirement for the offence committed during the service period.

The bench quashed the Karnataka high court verdict which had ruled that the protection should continue even after retirement and sanction was needed to initiate proceedings against a former public servant.

While discharging an assistant general manager of Vijaya Bank in a corruption case for lack of sanction, the HC had said, “A protection available to a public servant while in service should also be available after his retirement. It cannot be forgotten that even after retirement, he is prosecuted for offences under Prevention of Corruption Act. Indeed, the retirement removes one from the garb of a public servant; but justice requires that same protection should be available even after one’s retirement.”

Section 19(1) of the Act says no court shall take cognizance of an offence alleged to have been committed by a public servant, except with previous sanction.

Referring to various judgements of the apex court, the bench said the HC erred in its decision. “There was no occasion or reason to entertain any application seeking discharge in respect of offences punishable under the Act, on the ground of absence of any sanction under Section 19 of the Act. The high court was also not justified in observing that the protection available to a public servant while in service, should also be available after his retirement. That statement is completely inconsistent with the law laid down by this court in connection with requirement of sanction under Section 19 of the Act,” it said.

In this case, an FIR was registered against the manager for misusing his position in granting loan of ₹3 crore to a company in 2010 in gross violation of rules and regulations of the bank.

The case was registered in 2012 after his retirement. CBI filed chargesheet against him in 2014 after completing the investigations. The accused thereafter sought discharge on the ground that sanction was not taken but his plea was rejected by the trial court. HC, however, set aside the trial court order and discharged him.

Paving the way for trial of the accused, the apex court said, “Having considered the matter in entirety, in our view, the high court clearly erred in allowing criminal revision petition and accepting the challenge raised by the him on the issue of sanction. We, thus, allow this appeal, set aside the view taken by the high court, restore the order passed by the trial court and dismiss the application seeking discharge.”



The SC bench said the requirement of sanction under Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act is only for serving government employees and there is no bar to initiate prosecution after retirement for the offence committed during the service period

No comments:

Post a Comment

NEWS TODAY 21.12.2024