Case Note & Summary
The High Court allowed a criminal revision application by Applicant, a retired public servant, quashing his prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and IPC. The Applicant was accused of misappropriation while serving as CEO of Zilla Parishad, Jalna. After retirement, the prosecution filed a charge-sheet in 2005, but sanction was refused by the Government in 2007. The trial court rejected his discharge application, but the High Court held that mandatory sanction under Section 19(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was lacking, and protection under Section 197 of the CrPC applies post-retirement. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court quashed the prosecution, set aside the trial court's order, and discharged the Applicant.
Headnote
The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, allowed a Criminal Revision Application filed by Applicant, a retired Chief Executive Officer, seeking quashing of prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) -- The Applicant was charged with offences under Sections 120(B), 408, 409, 119, 465, 109 of the IPC and Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 -- The prosecution filed a charge-sheet on 18.01.2005 but sanction was refused by the Government on 07.12.2007 -- The trial court rejected the Applicant's application for discharge on 08.02.2008, relying on V.S. Goraya Vs. U.T. of Chandigarh -- The High Court held that sanction under Section 19(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is mandatory and the refusal of sanction precludes cognizance -- The Court distinguished V.S. Goraya and applied State of Punjab Vs. Labh Singh, which extends protection under Section 197 of the CrPC to retired public servants -- Considering the Applicant's age (83 years) and delay, the prosecution was quashed -- The impugned order was set aside, and the Applicant was discharged from the case
Premium Content
The Headnote is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now
to access key legal points
Issue of Consideration: The Issue of whether the trial court erred in rejecting the application for discharge and quashing of prosecution against a retired public servant when sanction had been refused by the competent authority
Premium Content
The Issue of Consideration is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now
to access critical case issues
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the Criminal Revision Application, quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 08.02.2008, and discharged the Applicant from the prosecution in Special (SPA) No.2/2005
2026 LawText (BOM) (02) 97
Criminal Revision Application No. 53 Of 2008
Mr. Rajendra Deshmukh a/w Mr. Hashmi Ubaid and Mrs. Shital i/by Mr. R.G. Dodiya, Mr. A. S. Shinde
Shamkant s/o Dattatraya Thombre
State of Maharashtra And Another
Premium Content
The Indexes are only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now
to access critical case indexes
Nature of Litigation: Criminal revision application seeking quashing of prosecution and discharge of the Applicant
Remedy Sought
The Applicant sought quashing and setting aside of the trial court order dated 08.02.2008 that rejected his application for discharge and quashing of prosecution
Filing Reason
The Applicant filed the revision due to refusal of sanction by the Government and alleged error by the trial court in applying law
Previous Decisions
The trial court rejected the application for discharge on 08.02.2008; the High Court admitted the revision on 17.06.2008 and stayed proceedings
Issues
Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the application for discharge when sanction under Section 19(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was refused by the competent authority
Whether protection under Section 197 of the CrPC extends to a retired public servant in the absence of sanction
Submissions/Arguments
The Applicant argued that sanction was mandatory under Section 19(1) of PCA and its refusal precludes prosecution
The Applicant contended that V.S. Goraya case was distinguishable as the accused was dismissed, not retired
The Applicant relied on State of Punjab Vs. Labh Singh to assert that Section 197 of CrPC protection applies post-retirement
The Applicant cited Prakash Natkar case to emphasize the object of sanction is to prevent harassment
The Applicant submitted that his age (83 years) and delay warranted quashing as per Nanjappa case
The Applicant argued that even under Section 319 of CrPC, sanction requirements under PCA must be satisfied as per Partap Singh Verka case
Ratio Decidendi
Sanction under Section 19(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is mandatory for taking cognizance of offences against a public servant; refusal of sanction by the competent authority renders prosecution untenable. Protection under Section 197 of the CrPC extends to public servants even after retirement, and courts cannot proceed without satisfying sanction requirements. Age and delay may be considered in quashing proceedings to prevent harassment.
Judgment Excerpts
Held that the High Court was absolutely right in setting aside the order of the Special Judge as the Court could not have taken the cognizance, insofar as the offences punishable under the Penal Code are concerned, as the protection under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is available to the public servant concerned even after retirement
Held that the mandate of Section 19(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is clear and unambiguous, that the Court shall not take cognizance without sanction by the competent authority
Held that the impugned order dated 08.02.2008 is bad in law and is thus liable to be quashed and set aside
Procedural History
Crime No.141/2000 registered in 2000 -- Charge-sheet filed on 18.01.2005 -- Applicant filed application for discharge on 27.07.2007 -- Sanction refused by Government on 07.12.2007 -- Trial court rejected application on 08.02.2008 -- Revision Application filed in High Court on 2008 -- High Court admitted revision on 17.06.2008 and stayed proceedings -- Final hearing on 03.02.2026 -- Judgment pronounced on 17.02.2026
Premium Content
The Indexes are only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now
to access critical case indexes
