Cr. Revision No. 138 of 2011 09.08.2011 Present:- Mr. J.R.Poswal, counsel for the petitioner. Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. A.G. with Mr. J.S.Rana, Asstt. A.G. for the respondents. This revision has been filed against order dated 8.7.2011 passed by learned Special Judge, Solan in case No. 114-S/4 of 2010 framing charge against the petitioner under Sections 7, 13(1) (d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that charge has been wrongly framed despite the application filed by the petitioner under Section 227 Cr.P.C. for discharging the petitioner on the ground that Divisional Commissioner vide order dated 22.1.2009 (sic 22.1.2010) Annexure P-2 has not accorded sanction to prosecute the petitioner. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner retired on 31.10.2009 and the challan was presented after the retirement of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not denied that after retirement of the petitioner no prosecution sanction was required for prosecuting the petitioner under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The letter dated 22.1.2010 is not part of the challan as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He has submitted that this letter was obtained by the petitioner under Right to Information Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that letter dated 22.1.2009 (sic 22.1.2010) was placed by the petitioner on record in the court of learned Special Judge, Solan. The core question involved in the petition is that after the retirement of the petitioner no prosecution sanction is required which has not been denied by learned counsel for the petitioner. Therefore, there is no merit in the petition which is accordingly dismissed. August 9, 2011 ( Kuldip Singh ) (GR) Judge