- (1.) This criminal revision petition, under Section 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereafter to be referred to as 'the Code') filed by the revisionist, is directed against the order dated 31.1.2005 passed by the Special Judge, C.B.I. Cases, Jaipur, Rajasthan, whereby the court below has taken cognizance and framed charges against him for offences under Sections 5(2) read with 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (Section 15(2) read with 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988). Briefly stated facts of the case, relevant for the purpose of disposal of this criminal revision, are that the revisionist was working in the Post & Telegraph Office, as a Clerk and remained posted in Stock Depot since 24.3.1956 to 27.11.1985 as a public servant. At the relevant time, he was serving as U.D.C. in the Office of the Postmaster General, Rajasthan Circle, Jaipur. As per the case of prosecution, the revisionist was dealing with local purchases, pertaining to the Office of P.M.G., Rajasthan Circle, Jaipur, and he, in connivance with private parties, is alleged to have accumulated illegal money and in this way, it has been alleged that he had assessed assets, which were disproportionate to his known sources of income. A search was conducted at his residence and disproportionate property to the tune of Rs.1,26,719.90, in excess to his known sources of income, was found from his possession. The revisionist could not furnish satisfactory explanation regrading his income and possession of assets found. A criminal case vide FIR no.40/1985 was registered against him on 25.11.1985 and after investigation, challan to proceed against him for offences under Sections 5(2) read with 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 [Section 15(2) read with 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988], was filed against him. However, the then Special Judge, C.B.I. Cases, Jaipur, Rajasthan, vide the order dated 9.12.1991, in criminal case no.8/1989, discharged the revisionist on the ground that the sanction for his prosecution was improper and it was not given by the authority competent to remove him from the office, reserving liberty for the department to initiate fresh prosecution proceedings against the revisionist after obtaining requisite sanction from the competent authority. Thereafter the revisionist retired and thereby ceased to be a public servant with effect from 30.11.1992. After the revisionist had retired from service on 30.11.1992, fresh challan was filed by the prosecution against him on 12.4.1993 without obtaining fresh sanction from competent authority. It is pursuant to this subsequent challan filed by prosecution, the court below vide this impugned order dated 31.3.2005 took cognizance and has framed charges against the revisionist for offences under Section 5(2) read with 5(1)(e) of the Act of 1947 (Section 15(2) read with 13(e) of the Act of 1988). The trial court, while taking cognizance and framing charges against the revisionist, has taken a view that sanction for prosecution is not required in the case of a public servant after his retirement.
(2.) Aggrieved by the said order of court below, the present revision has been filed by the revisionist.
(3.) This court has heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record of the case to appreciate the rival contentions advanced by both the parties.;