3. So far as the judgment reported in (2014) 16 SCC 807 (Supra) is concerned, the facts of the said case clearly indicates that the matter was placed before the concerned authority for grant of sanction for prosecution which was rejected twice and after the retirement of the accused, cognizance was taken by the court under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as well as under the provisions of Indian Penal Code. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that so far as cognizance under the provision of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is concerned, if the incumbent has retired from service and after his retirement, the court is asked to take cognizance, there is no such bar from taking cognizance in absence of sanction for prosecution. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case held that unlike Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the protection under Section 197 of Cr.P.C is available to the public servant concerned even after retirement and held that the concerned High Court was absolutely right in setting aside the order of the Special Judge taking cognizance for the alleged offence under Indian Penal Code. The allegation made against the person involved in the case reported in (2014) 16 SCC 807 (supra) has been mentioned in Para-4 of the aforesaid judgment and it was found that the allegation established that the suspected officer did not get prepared the cross sections and estimates for embezzling the Government Treasury at a large scale and in the said works , due to starting/finishing of the repair works without preparing estimates, the officers were found responsible. This Court also finds that in the said case, there was no dispute as to whether the petitioner was a Government Servant or not as he was directly employed under the State Government.
