ORDER
S.S. Parkar, J.
1. The State has sought revision of the order dated 1lth August 1992 passed by the Special Judge, Thane in Special Case No. 1 of 1989 whereby the respondent accused was discharged for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 419, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC read with Section 5(1)(c) and 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act by dropping the prosecution against him.
2. The respondent accused is alleged to have committed the aforesaid offences during the period between 1-11-83 to 28th February, 1984 when he was working as Superintending Engineer with the Government of Maharashtra. He retired from the service on 29-2-1984 and thereafter FIR was lodged against him on 1lth June, 1985. After the completion of the investigation the charge-sheet was submitted in the Court of the Special Judge, Thane on 13th January, 1989 against the respondent. The cognizance was taken and the process was issued against the respondent.
3. The respondent-accused thereafter made an application dated 22nd October, 1991 for discharge on the ground that the charge-sheet was filed more than four years after the retirement of the accused-respondent and, therefore, he was not liable to be prosecuted by virtue of provisions of the Pension Rules. The said application was allowed by the Special Judge relying on Rule 27(3) of Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 which runs as under :
No judicial proceedings, if not instituted while the Govt. servant was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment, shall be instituted in respect of a cause of action which arose or in respect of an event which took place more than four years before such institution.
The trial Court also relied on Rule 27(6)(b) of the aforesaid Rules which reads as follows :
For the purpose of this rule, judicial proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted in the case of criminal proceedings on the date on which the complaint or report of a police officer, of which the Magistrate takes cognizance is made.
4. The said order is impugned in this Revision Application. Mr. Galeria, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State has urged that the impugned order cannot be sustained in law as the respondent has committed serious offence of forgery and corruption for which there is no period of limitation laid down under the Criminal Procedure Code. The offences alleged to be committed by the respondent-accused are under the Penal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code does not prescribe any period of limitation. According to him the Criminal Procedure Code which is an Act of Parliament should prevail over the Pension Rules. In support of his contention he places reliance on Article 254 of the Constitution of India which lays down that in case of any inconsistency between the laws made by the Parliament and the laws made by the State Legislature, the laws made by the Parliament shall prevail unless the State Law has received the assent of the President. He also brought to my notice the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Kailash Nath where the Supreme Court was concerned with the prosecution of an ex-Government employee. In that case also on behalf of the accused reliance was placed on Service Rules similar to the aforesaid Rule 27(3) which prescribed period of limitation after retirement of a Government servant for lodging prosecution against him. The Supreme Court held that such rule cannot place embargo on prosecution as the said Service Rules were not the condition of service. The said judgment was relied on by this Court in the case of Prabhakar v. State of Maharashtra, reported in 1991 Mah LJ 1051, where the question was with regard to the validity of sanction order which was questioned on the ground of validity of aforesaid Rule 27 of the Pension Rules. Following the decision of the Supreme Court it was held by this Court that the sanction to prosecution cannot be rendered invalid on the ground of Rule 27 as no period of limitation was prescribed by the Cr. P.C. for offence of conspiracy under Section 120-B of the IPC which is one of the charges levelled in the instant case. I am in respectful agreement with the view expressed in the said case. For the same reasons, in my view, the period of limitation of four years prescribed under Rule 27(3) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, which is quoted hereinabove, will not stand in the way of taking cognizance for the offences for which the respondent was charge-sheeted, the Criminal Procedure Code not having prescribed any period of limitation.
5. Consequently this Revision Application deserves to be allowed. Accordingly rule is made absolute in terms of prayer Clauses (b) and (c) of this Criminal Revision Application. The trial Court is directed to expedite further proceedings in Special Case No. 1 of 1989 as already a period of ten years has expired due to the application for discharge made on behalf of the respondent accused. Order accordingly. Writ expedited.