1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRI. APPLICATION NO.285 OF 2009 (STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. PARMESHWAR DNYANDEO MUTHAL) _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders ______________________________________________________________________________________________ Shri D.B.Patel, A.P.P. for Applicant. CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATED : APRIL 01, 2009. 1. This is an application for grant of leave to file appeal against judgment of acquittal rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Buldana, for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, on the ground that sanction to prosecute the accused had not been accorded by the authority competent to appoint the accused. 2. I have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. He also read to me the evidence of Tahsildar, who was appointing Authority. The accused was a part-time employee appointed by order dated 01.07.1999 w.e.f. 20th July, 2 1999 for a period of three years. The Tahsildar admits that he has power to remove the accused from service. However, the accused was not removed from service. He simply stopped coming to the office from the day of trap i.e. 09.12.1999. This the Tahsildar interpreted this to be termination of service without passing an order of termination. 3. In N.Bhargavan Pillai Vs. State of Kerla, reported at (2004) 13 SCC 217 the Apex Court held in paragraph 8 that the correct legal position is that the accused facing prosecution for the offence punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act cannot claim any immunity on the ground of want of sanction if he ceases to be a public servant on the date when the Court took cognizance of the said offence. It is not shown in this case that on the date when the Court took cognizance of this offence, the accused had ceased to be a part-time government servant. No order terminating his services was even claimed to have been passed by the Tahsildar who was competent to remove the applicant. Therefore, the view taken by the learned Judge, that the prosecution launched against 3 the respondent was untenable, was correct . Hence, leave refused. Appeal dismissed. JUDGE RR.