Arun S/O Balkrishna Bayaskar v. State Of Mah.,

revn131.19.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL REVISION 131 OF 2019 (Arun s/o. Balkrishna Bayskar..vs.. State, thr A.C.B. Dy.S.P. Buldana) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court'

s orders of directions Court'

s or Judge'

s orders.

and Registrar's Orders.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. A.M. Jaltare, counsel for applicant.

Mrs. K.R. Deshpande, APP for non-applicant/State. CORAM: ROHIT B. DEO, J.

DATE: 02.09.2021 Heard.

2.

The only ground in the Application seeking discharge is that sanction under section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ("Act") is necessary even if the public servant has retired.

3.

The issue is not res integra and is concluded by plethora of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court holding that sanction under section 19 of the Act is not necessary. Illustrative reference may be made to Station House Officer, CBI/ACB/Bangalore ..vs.. B.A. Srinivasan & Another [(2020)2 SCC 153].

revn131.19.odt 4.

In view of the legal position, a praecipe is placed on record seeking withdrawal of the Revision. 5.

The Revision is dismissed as withdrawn.

JUDGE Belkhede