5 of 1990 against the respondent.
The judge of the special companyrt took companynisance of the offences and issued process against the respondent.
1999 Supp 4 SCR 260 The Judgment the Court was delivered by SHAH, J. Leave granted.
5 of 1990.
Respondent retired on 31 December 1987 as Deputy Engineer.
The said judgment of the learned Single Judge is being challenged number.
Thereafter the respondent filed Criminal Writ Petition No.
On 13 October 1990, a charge sheet No.
Even on merits, sanction to prosecute was received on 25 August, 1989 and therefore also, the submission of the charge sheet before the Court on 30 October, 1990 was within time.
The High Court accepted the plea and held that Rule 27 of the Pension Rules was directly applicable and it is mandatory that prosecution should be launched within four years from the date of companymission of offence.
484 of 1991 before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay for quashing the criminal proceedings on the ground that the companyplaint was filed beyond the period of four years from the date of the companymission of the offence and therefore, it was barred by Rule 27 3 of the Maharashtra Civil Service Pension Rules, 1982 hereinafter referred to as the Pension Rules .
Necessary sanction for prosecuting the respondent for the offences punishable under sections 120 B,406,420,465,466,467,468,471,477 and 109of the I.P.C. and Section 5 l c d read with Section 5 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 was obtained.
Hence, the companyrt allowed the writ petition and quashed the proceedings in Special Case No.
1 was serving as Deputy Engineer, P.W.D. in the State of Maharashtra.
247 of 1990 was filed against the respondent and several other officers of the Department before the Special Court, Satara, and the case was numbered as Special Case No.
Respondent No.
