- (1.) Petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 482 of the Code Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C. for short) seeking quashing of the FIR No. 64 dated 3.10.2003 registered under Sections 7/13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988('the Act' for short) at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Patiala Range, District Patiala (Annexure P1) , supplementary report under Section 173(8) Cr.PC. and the orders dated 17.8.2009 and 19.8.2009 passed by the Special Judge, Patiala (Annexure P9 and Annexure P11) along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
(2.) Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the sanction for prosecution of the petitioner was declined on three occasions by the competent authority. The Special Judge could not take cognizance of the matter without any sanction for prosecution of the accused merely on the ground that now the petitioner has since been retired. In support of his arguments, learned senior counsel has placed reliance on 'Cittaranjan Das versus State of Orissa, 2011 3 RCR(Cri) 512', wherein it was held as under:- "We do not find any substance in the submission of Mr. Tripathy and the decision relied on is clearly distinguishable. Sanction is a devise provided by law to safeguard public servants from vexatious and frivolous prosecution. It is to give them freedom and liberty to perform their duty without fear or favour and not succumb to the pressure of unscrupulous elements. It is a weapon at the hands of the sanctioning authority to protect the innocent public servants from uncalled for prosecution but not intended to shield the guilty. Here in the present case while the appellant was in service sanction sought for his prosecution was declined by the State government. Vigilance Department did not challenge the same and allowed the appellant to retire from service. After the retirement, Vigilance Department requested the State Government to reconsider its decision, which was not only refused but the State Government while doing so clearly observed that no prima facie case of disproportionate assets against the appellant is made out. Notwithstanding that Vigilance Department chose to file charge-sheet after the retirement of the appellant and on that Special Judge had taken cognizance and issued process. We are of the opinion that in a case in which sanction sought is refused by the competent authority, while the public servant is in service, he cannot be prosecuted later after retirement, notwithstanding the fact that no sanction for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act is necessary after the retirement of 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."
(3.) Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that since the petitioner had retired from the service, his sanction for prosecution was not necessary.;