Prosecution after four years from retirement

Local authority asks CBI to file FIR against retired and retiring employees. Lodge the FIR  for negligence of duty tantamounting threat to life & property. The alleged offence by churning out substandard housing flats declared unsafe by one technical expert. Building is built 10-12 years back citing criminal conspiracy amongst a huge number of technical employees, construction agencies etc. Is it tenable under the law post retirement of 7-8 years.

Prosecution after four years from retirement. Local authority asks CBI to file FIR against retired and retiring employees. Lodge the FIR  for negligence of duty tantamounting threat to life & property. The alleged offence by churning out substandard housing flats declared unsafe by one technical expert. Building is built 10-12 years back citing criminal conspiracy amongst a huge number of technical employees, construction agencies etc. Is it tenable under the law post retirement of 7-8 years.

The present FIR is illegal because it has been lodged after the gap of four years from the date of occurrence. A retired government servant shall not be prosecuted for the offence committed beyond four years from his date of retirement. 

In this scenario you should file a writ petition in the high court for the quashing of the FIR. The high court may quash the FIR because it is violating the service rules. You committed that offence while you were in government service. That offence was committed in the discharge of your official duty. 

When the government servant committed an act in the discharge of his official duty then any offence arising out of  that act needs sanction from the government. After retirement of that government servant however, the sanction for prosecution is not required but where the offence committed is beyond the time period of four years the government cannot prosecute him.

Tags:

Shivendra Pratap Singh

Shivendra Pratap Singh

Advocate

Advocate Shivendra, practicing law since 2005, specializes in criminal and matrimonial cases, extensive litigatin experience before the High Court, Sessions court & Family Court. He established kanoonirai.com in 2014 to provide dependable and pragmatic legal support. Over the years, he has successfully assisted thousands of clients, making the platform a trusted resource for criminal and matrimonial dispute resolution in India.

Related Matters

Husband is demanding DNA test to check the paternity of our son in divorce case

The law does not permit a husband to compel his wife or child to undergo a DNA test merely on the basis of suspicion. In Gautam Kundu v. State of West Bengal (1993) 3 SCC 418, the Supreme Court held that a blood or DNA test cannot be directed as a matter of course. Before seeking such a direction, the husband must establish a strong prima facie case by proving that he had no access to his wife during the period when the child could have been conceived.

क्या चेक बाउंस का केस मियाद समाप्त होने के बाद भी दाखिल हो सकता है

Negotiable Instruments Act के अंतर्गत, वैधानिक अवधि समाप्त होने के बाद भी चेक बाउंस का मामला दायर किया जा सकता है। यदि शिकायतकर्ता देरी का उचित कारण प्रस्तुत करता है, तो न्यायालय विलंब को क्षमा कर शिकायत स्वीकार कर सकता है। नोटिस के बाद निर्धारित समय में भुगतान न होने पर कार्यवाही प्रारंभ की जा सकती है।

Cancellation of bail when accused tempering with witness

Seeking the cancellation of bail is possible when an accused person tampers with witnesses or influences a trial. This guide explains legal grounds for such actions, focusing on mandatory procedures under Section 15-A of the SC/ST Act and post-bail threats. Learn how victims can approach higher courts to ensure a fair trial and protect their rights.

Evidence of interested witness is admissible in criminal proceedings

In criminal law, the testimony of a related witness cannot be discarded solely due to their relationship with the victim. This legal overview clarifies the distinction between related and interested witnesses, citing key Supreme Court rulings. It explains how natural witnesses provide admissible evidence that reliably forms the basis for a conviction, even without independent corroboration.

SDM cannot attach property under section 146 crpc when civil suit is pending

A Sub-Divisional Magistrate cannot legally attach property under Section 146 of the CrPC if a civil suit regarding the same property is already pending. This guide explains why such orders lack jurisdiction and outlines the proper legal remedy, including filing a petition under Section 482 CrPC to the High Court based on established Supreme Court precedents.