AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
5 paragraphs · 393 wordsLeave granted.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether in case of a retired public servant, previous sanction of the government is required before the court can take cognizance of the offence under the J&K Public Servants Prevention of Corruption Act, 1975. Section 6 of that Act reads as under:
"6. Previous sanction necessary for prosecution.-No court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 161 or Section 164 or Section 165 or Section 167-A other State Ranbir Penal Code, Samvat 1989 or under Ss. (2 or section (3 of Section 5 of this Act, alleged to have been committed by a public servant except with the previous sanction: (a) in the case of a person who is employed in connection with the affairs of the State and is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the government; (b) in the case of any other person, of the authority competent to remove him from his office; * * *"
This court in Kalicharan Mahapatra v. State of orissa has held that if a public servant has ceased to be a public servant at the time the court is called upon to take cognizance of the offence, no previous sanction is necessary. This court also referred to its previous decision in R.Balakrishna Pillai v. State of Kerala on which reliance has been placed by the High court for taking the contrary view and has pointed out how that judgment can be of no relevance where the offence alleged is an offence punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. In para 13 of the judgment this court has specifically dealt with this aspect. Thus, the law on this point is quite clear that in case of a public servant who is alleged to have committed an offence punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, no previous sanction would be required if by the time the court is called upon to take cognizance of that offence he has ceased to be a public servant. The High court was wrong in taking the contrary view. This appeal is, therefore, allowed, judgment and order passed by the High court are set aside and the trial court is directed to proceed further with the trial of the case.