CHITIARANJAN DAS versus STATE OF ORISSA

Citation: [2011] 7 S.C.R. 836 · Decided: 04-07-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.S. SINGHVI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2011) 7 S.C.R. 836 
CHITIARANJAN DAS 
v. 
STATE OF ORISSA 
(Criminal Appeal No. 820 of 2007) 
JULY 04, 2011 
[G.S. SINGHVI AND CHANDRAMAULI 
KR. PRASAD, JJ.] 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 - s. 19 - Previous 
C sanction necessary for prosecution - FIR lodged against a 
public servant for possessing assets disproportionate to known 
sources of income - Vigilance Department seeking sanction 
for prosecution of the public servant - Refusal by State 
Government to grant sanction for prosecution -
D Superannuation of the public servant - Thereafter, despite 
request by Vigilance Department the State Government 
declined to reconsider the decision - Subsequently, charge 
sheet filed uls. 5(2) rw s. 5(1)(e) of the Act against the public 
servant - Special Judge taking cognizance of the offence and 
E issued process - Challenge to - Held: 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 
F necessary after the retirement of Public Servant - Any other 
view will render the protection illusory - Thus, impugned order 
is set aside and the prosecution of the public servant pending 
in the court of Special Judge is quashed. 
Appellant, public servant was found in possession 
G of disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs.5.5 lakhs. The 
Vigilance Department sought sanction for prosecution of 
the appellant but the State Government declined to grant 
sanction. Thereafter, the appellant superannuated from 
service. The Vigilance Department requested the State 
H 
836 
CHITIARANJAN DAS v. STATE OF ORISSA 
837 
Government for reconsideration of the earlier order A 
refusing the sanction for prosecution of the appellant. 
The State Government declined to grant sanction for 
prosecution as no prima facie case of disproportionate 
assets was made out against the appellant. Thereafter, 
B 
the Vigilance Department filed charge~sheet against the 
appellant under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(e) of 
the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 alleging 
acquisition of disproportionate assets to the tune of 
Rs.1.4 lakhs. The Special Judge took cognizance of the 
said offence and issued non-bailable warrant against the C 
appellant. Aggrieved, the appellant filed a petition under 
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking 
quashing of the said order but the High Court disposed 
of the same. The trial court also dismissed the application 
·tor discharge filed by the appellant. The appellant then 
D 
challenged the said order and the High Court dismissed 
·· the same. Therefore, the appellant filed the instant appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Sanction is -a devise provided by law to 
E 
safeguard public servants from vexatious and frivolous 
prosecution. It is to give them freedom and liberty to 
perform their duty without fear or favou.r and not 
succumb to the pressure of unscrupulous elements. It is 
a weapon at the hands of the sanctioning authority to 
F 
protect the innocent public servants from uncalled 
prosecution but not intended to shield the guilty. In the 
. instant case, while the appellant was in service, sanction 
sought for his prosecution was declined by the State 
Government. The Vigil~nce Department did not challenge 
G 
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 H 
838 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 7 S.C.R. 
A. 
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. In a case in which sanction sought is refused 
B 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 
c render the protection illusory. Situation may be different 
when sanction is refused by the competent authority after 
the retirement. of the public servant as

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.