01Facts
The CBI investigated alleged irregularities in the purchase of supplies under the MGNREGA scheme in Balrampur during 2007–09.
pp. 2–5 · ¶ 8–16The applicant, a UPSIC officer who retired on 30 June 2009, was not named in the FIR but was included in the charge-sheet filed on 28 September 2018.
pp. 2–5 · ¶ 8–16The trial court took cognizance and summoned him on 18 October 2018.
pp. 2–5 · ¶ 8–16He sought to quash the proceedings, principally arguing that prosecution sanction was required under the amended Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which was in force when cognizance was taken.
pp. 2–5, 8 · ¶ 8–16, 22, 25–27He also relied on his absence from the FIR and his age and health.
pp. 2–5, 8 · ¶ 8–16, 22, 25–2702Issues
i.1. Whether the amended Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act applied to alleged offences committed before the amendment, such that sanction was required when cognizance was taken after the amendment.
pp. 6–8 · ¶ 21–24ii.2. Whether the charge-sheet or proceedings could be quashed because the applicant was not named in the FIR.
p. 8 · ¶ 25iii.3. Whether the applicant’s age and medical condition justified quashing the proceedings.
p. 8 · ¶ 26–2703Law Applied
Before its 2018 amendment, Section 19(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act required prior sanction for cognizance of specified offences alleged against a public servant; the Act’s definition of “public servant” did not extend to a person who had ceased to be in service.
p. 6 · ¶ 21The 2018 amendment added an explanation to Section 19(1), extending the expression to a person who had ceased to hold the office in which the alleged offence was committed.
p. 6 · ¶ 21Relying on *State of Telangana v. Mangipet @ Mangipet Sarveshwar Reddy*, (2019) 19 SCC 87, the Court applied the law in force before the amendment to the pre-amendment alleged conduct and FIR.
pp. 5–7 · ¶ 18, 23–24It also followed *Dr. Syed Farid Haider Rizvi v. CBI*, 2022 SCC OnLine All 784, which held that subsequent statutory amendments do not govern prosecution for offences committed before the amendment.
pp. 5–7 · ¶ 19–20, 23The Court declined to follow *Dr. Anil Kumar Shukla @ A.K. Shukla v. CBI*, 2019 SCC OnLine All 7223, because it considered that decision inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s ruling in *Mangipet*.
p. 7 · ¶ 23Provisions in the judgment · 10 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Section 2Section 7Section 10Section 11Section 13Section 15Section 19
Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 409Section 420
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 482
04Reasoning
The alleged offences occurred in 2007–09, before the 2018 amendment, and the applicant had retired before the FIR was lodged in 2014.
pp. 7–8 · ¶ 24Applying *Mangipet* and *Syed Farid Haider Rizvi*, the Court held that the amended provision did not govern the prosecution and that, under the unamended Section 19, no sanction was required for prosecuting the applicant after his retirement.
pp. 7–8 · ¶ 24The applicant’s not being named in the FIR did not warrant quashing because his involvement could emerge during investigation.
p. 8 · ¶ 25His age and medical condition could be relevant to bail, but were not grounds to quash the proceedings.
p. 8 · ¶ 26–2705Holding
The Court found no merit in the applicant’s submissions and no illegality in the trial court’s order taking cognizance and summoning him.
p. 8 · ¶ 28–29The application was dismissed.
p. 8 · ¶ 28–29The Court directed that, if the applicant appeared before the trial court and sought bail, his application should be considered sympathetically and expeditiously in accordance with law, including *Satendra Kumar Antil v. CBI*, (2022) 10 SCC 51.
p. 8 · ¶ 28–29Original Court PDF
Kuldeep Singh VirdivsUnion Of India Thru.Secy.Home Affairs New Delhi.And Anr.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
