Bombay High Court
Bhaskar S/O. Arjun Pandilwar And ... vs State Of Mah. Thr. Pso Ramnagar, ... on 2 February, 2024
Author: Vinay Joshi
Bench: Vinay Joshi
Order 0202apl192.24
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION [APL] NO. 192/2024.
Bhaskar Arjun Pandilwar and another.
-VERSUS-
State of Maharashtra.
Office notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders
or directions and Registrar's orders.
Shri D.V. Chauhan, Advocate for Applicants.
S/Shri M. Khan & M. Badar, A.P.Ps. for the Non-applicant.
CORAM : VINAY JOSHI AND
VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.
DATE : FEBRUARY 02, 2024.
Heard.
2. This is an application seeking to quash Special
ACB Case No.25/2017 pending on the file of Additional
Sessions Judge, Chandrapur arising out of charge-sheet in
Crime No.3041/2015 registered with Ramnagar Police
Station, Chandrapur for the offence punishable under
Sections13[1][e], 13[2] of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 and Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The applicant no.1 was in service as Range
Forest Officer right from the year 1982 and has retired on
superannuation on 31.07.2014. After his retirement, the
Rgd.
Order 0202apl192.24
existing first information report has been registered on
25.02.2015. The cause for registration of the first
information report is stated to be a general complaint
made by one Shri Waghmare, long back in the year 2007,
which caused to make an enquiry.
4. It is the contention of applicants that the check
period was considered almost entire length of service of
27 years. The allegation is about accumulation of wealth
of Rs.7 lakhs i.e. dis-proportionate assets than the known
sources. Applicants would submit that applicant no.2-
wife was also in gainful employment, but, her income
was not considered.
5. Apart from merits, on facts the learned Counsel
for applicants would submit that for want of necessary
sanction in terms of Section 19 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, the prosecution is wholly untenable. The
learned Counsel took us through the amended sub-clause
[a] to Section 19[1], which has put an additional guard of
protection to the retired employees also. The said
amendment came into force w.e.f. 26.07.2018. There is
no dispute that from 26.07.2018 onwards to prosecute a
public servant in service/retired, prior sanction is
Rgd.
Order 0202apl192.24
required.
6. The learned Counsel has extended his
submission by stating that the amendment was in the
form of substitution, thus, it relates back to the original
section as has been introduced in the Act of 1988. In
other words, though the first information report was filed
prior to the amendment, the applicants are entitled for the
change in law i.e. requirement of sanction for retired
employees.
7. The question arises as to whether the
amendment has to be given effect relating back to the
initiation of the original Act or from the date when it has
been introduced in the statute book. To answer the said
issue, the learned Counsel for applicants has relied on the
decision of learned Single Judge of Karnataka High Court
in case of State of Karnataka .vrs. Dr.V. Chandrashekhar
Vangundi Veerann - Criminal Revision No.790/2015
decided on 09.02.2022, which specifically deals with the
issue involved and concluded that having regard to aims
and object of the amendment, the protection would
relates back, since it is substitution of the section. The
Karnataka High Court has drawn force from a Division
Rgd.
Order 0202apl192.24
Bench judgment of the same High Court, pertaining to the
provisions of Hindu Succession Act. Certainly, the above
said question of law requires consideration.
8. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the non-applicant
drew our attention to Section 19[3][b] of the Act, which
precludes the Court from staying the proceeding under
this Act on the ground of error, omission or irregularity in
the sanction. The said provision is with a rider that if the
Court is satisfied that such an error, omission or
irregularity would result into failure of justice, then the
bar would not apply.
9. Always it assume significance that at what
stage of trial the point of sanction has been objected by
the accused. Herein, it is brought to our notice that yet
evidence has not commenced, and at this stage the point
of sanction has been canvassed. There is no quarrel on
the point that the prosecution has not obtained sanction
to prosecute. The opening words of Section 19 itself puts
a fetter on the power of the Special Court to take
cognizance in absence of sanction. Thus, the question of
sanction goes to the very root of prosecution and directly
relates to the very jurisdiction of the Court to take
Rgd.
Order 0202apl192.24
cognizance.
10. In view of above, issue notice to the non-
applicant, returnable on 04.03.2024. Learned A.P.P.
waives notice for the non-applicant.
11. In the meanwhile, the trial Court shall not
proceed further with the matter till returnable date.
JUDGE JUDGE
Signed by: R.G. Dhuriya (RGD)
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 05/02/2024 18:22:28
Rgd.
