HYDERABAD: No prior sanction from competent authority is necessary if the public servant in question had ceased to be a public servant on the date of taking of cognizance of the offence registered against him under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Sanction is essential only if, at the time of taking cognizance, the accused official is still holding the public office which he allegedly abused.Under the law, sanction is a device provided 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 in the hands of the sanctioning authority to protect the innocent public servants from uncalled-for prosecution but not intended to shield the guilty.In one of the cases before the Hyderabad High Court, the petitioner, who had retired from government service, urged the court to quash the criminal proceedings pending against him before the Special ACB Court.
After promotion he had worked as a senior officer between March and October in 2009. He retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation in December 2010. On receiving credible information that he had acquired disproportionate assets while functioning as a public servant, the ACB registered a case in October 2009 for the offences punishable under the PC Act.
After completing investigation, the ACB filed a charge sheet in November 2013. Subsequently, the Special ACB court took cognizance of the offence under the Act nearly three years after the retirement of the petitioner. Aggrieved by it, he moved the High Court for relief.The predominant contention of the petitioner’s counsel is that taking of cognizance of offence without sanction from the competent authority is not legally sustainable.
On the other hand, the standing counsel for ACB strenuously submitted that by the time the court took cognizance of the offence, the petitioner had retired from service, and therefore, no sanction was required to prosecute a retired government employee under the provisions of the PC Act.Justice T Sunil Chowdary said that the petitioner failed to establish that continuation of criminal proceedings against him would amount to abuse of process of law which warrants interference of the High Court by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC.
In the present case, the government did not decline to grant sanction for prosecution of the petitioner at any point of time. The judge said that the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be granted since there was no material on record to establish that the state government had communicated to ACB any decision of dropping of criminal proceedings against the petitioner.He was unable to accede to the contention of the petitioner’s counsel that criminal prosecution was not maintainable against the petitioner for want of sanction, the judge noted.