:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 362 OF 2007 Kuldip Narayan ..Applicant Vs. State through CBI-ACB, Mumbai ..Respondent Mr. H.V. Prithwani for applicant. Ms. Revati Mohite-Dere for CBI. Mrs.P.P. Shinde, APP for State. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE,J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE,J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE,J. Dated: July 30, 2008. Dated: July 30, 2008. Dated: July 30, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Prithwani the learned counsel for the applicant who is accused no.6 in Special Case No. 55 of 2006 initiated at the instance of the Central Bureau of Investigation before the Special Court under the Prevention of Corruption act, 1988. The applicant had initially submitted an application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. for discharge which was registered as Misc. Application No. 217 of 2001 and it was rejected. He had approached this court in a Criminal Revision Application which also was rejected. 2. The applicant filed a fresh application registered as CBI M.A. No. 588 of 2006 in Special :2: Case No. 55 of 2006 and prayed for discharge on the ground, "In view of the above facts, as a pre trial issue I may be given protection u/s 197 of Cr.P.C. and u/s 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act, as a public servant and or others and the cognizance of this official duty, performed by me, may not be taken as an offence and proceeding may not be continued against me." . Whatever may be the linguistic semantics, the fact remains that this was also an application for discharge and it could not be under any provisions other than Section 227 of Cr.P.C. while the trial was pending. The learned Special Judge rejected the said application by the impugned order dated 22/6/2007. 3. It was noted that the applicant had retired from service in February, 1991 and the CBI Case No. 24/A/1994 came to be registered against him under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in the year 1994. :3: Charge-sheet was filed after the investigations on 30/9/1998. The learned Special Judge placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Rakesh Kumar Mishra vs. State of Bihar and ors. [(2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 432]. In para 17 of the said judgment the Supreme Court observed, "The correct legal position, therefore, is that an accused facing prosecution for offences under the old Act or new Act cannot claim any immunity and the ground of want of sanction, if he ceased to be a public servant on the date when the court took cognizance of the said offences...." 4. It is, therefore, clear that the view taken by the learned Special Judge in dismissing the application for discharge filed by the applicant for the second time cannot be faulted with. 5. Criminal Revision Application is, therefore, rejected summarily. :4: (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.)