The Allahabad High Court has held that the requirement of sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is governed by the law in force when the offence was committed and the FIR lodged, and not by the law in force when the trial court takes cognizance.

It held that an officer who had retired long before the FIR was not a public servant on that date and could be prosecuted without sanction.

Before the 2018 amendment, Section 19(1)(c) barred cognizance of offences under Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 alleged against a public servant without previous sanction, and Section 2(c) covered only persons in service. The amendment added an explanation taking in a person who has ceased to hold the office during which the offence is alleged to have been committed.

Justice Subhash Vidyarthi held,

“Therefore, I find no force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the amended Act would apply as it has come into existence on the date of taking cognizance and I am of the view that the law existing on the date of commission of the offence and lodging of the FIR, which was the unamended Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, would govern the field. As per the unamended law, as the petitioner had retired long before lodging of the FIR and on the said date he was not a public servant, there was no need for obtaining sanction of his prosecution.”

Petitioner sought quashing of a charge-sheet of 28.09.2018 filed by CBI in an FIR of 21.02.2014, lodged on the direction of the High Court to investigate misappropriation of MGNREGA funds in seven districts of Uttar Pradesh between 2007 and 2010. Then with the U.P. Small Industries Corporation, he was not named in the FIR but was charge-sheeted over supply orders for first aid boxes, tents and water tanks placed without obtaining competitive rates.

It was pleaded that petitioner retired on 30.06.2009, that the amended Section 19 was in force when the charge-sheet was filed and cognizance taken, and that no sanction had been obtained. Reliance was placed on Dr. Anil Kumar Shukla @ A.K. Shukla v. Central Bureau of Investigation, in which a coordinate bench held that the sanction requirement is triggered by the date of cognizance. CBI pleaded that petitioner had ceased to be a public servant on retirement, relying on State of Telangana v. Mangipet, in which the Supreme Court held that an FIR registered well before the amendment would be governed by the unamended Act.

The Court observed that Mangipet had not been placed before the coordinate bench deciding Dr. Anil Kumar Shukla, and held that the decision, being in conflict with the Supreme Court, could not be followed. It further held that petitioner not being named in the FIR was irrelevant to quashing a charge-sheet where his involvement came to light during investigation.

On the plea that petitioner is an old and ailing person, the Court held,

“Old age and medical condition of an accused person may be relevant considerations for deciding an application for his enlargement on bail, but this cannot be a ground for quashing the proceedings.”

Finding no illegality in the order taking cognizance, the Court dismissed the petition. It directed that if petitioner seeks bail before the trial court, his application be considered sympathetically and expeditiously in accordance with law, particularly Satendra Kumar Antil.