The petitioner, a retired Executive Engineer of BBMP, faced three corruption cases (Spl.C.C. Nos. 339/2018, 338/2018, 107/2018) for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and IPC. The Trial Court initially discharged him entirely (20.09.2023), but the High Court set aside that order (Crl.R.P. No. 702/2024, 22.03.2025) and remitted for fresh consideration. On remand, the Trial Court discharged him for IPC offences but declined discharge for PC Act offences (order dated 24.02.2026), holding that prior sanction under Section 19(1) PC Act is not required for a retired official.
The petitioner contended that the 2018 amendment to Section 19(1) (effective 26.07.2018) mandates sanction even for retired public servants, and since no sanction was obtained, the proceedings were jurisdictionally defective. He also relied on two High Court orders (Crl.R.P. Nos. 1214/2025, 1215/2025, dated 06.07.2026) where this Court quashed proceedings for lack of sanction.
The High Court (Justice H.P. Sandesh) rejected the contentions. It held:
1. The 2018 amendment to Section 19(1) PC Act is prospective in operation. Relying on State of Telangana v. Managipet (2019) 19 SCC 87, the Court ruled that the amendment does not apply to cases where the FIR was registered, investigation completed, charge-sheet filed, and cognizance taken before 26.07.2018.
2. Cognizance in all three cases was taken on 16.02.2018 and 23.05.2018 — i.e., before the amendment. Therefore, the amended provision does not enure to the petitioner's benefit.
3. The Delhi High Court in Crl.Ref. No. 1/2019 (06.08.2026) clarified that the amendment's retrospective benefit extends only to cases where cognizance had not yet been taken as on 26.07.2018; where cognizance already stood taken, it shall not be reopened.
4. The earlier orders in Crl.R.P. Nos. 1214/2025 and 1215/2025 were distinguished because in those cases no cognizance had been taken before the amendment, and the accused were retired at the relevant time.
5. The Supreme Court in Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra (1994) 4 SCC 602 establishes that an amending statute affecting substantive rights is presumed prospective unless made retrospective expressly or by necessary intendment. The amendment to Section 19(1) creates a new obligation (sanction for retired officials) and is therefore prospective.
6. The Trial Court correctly followed the Apex Court's judgment in the B.T. Ramesh matter (SLP (Civil) Nos. 5150-5152/2023, 14.07.2025) holding that prior sanction under Section 19(1)(a) is required only for public servants in service at the time of taking cognizance.
Accordingly, the revision petitions were dismissed. The partial rejection of the discharge application (allowing discharge for IPC offences, continuing PC Act proceedings) was upheld.
