LexR. S. NAYAK versus A.R. ANTULAY
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
I .
,.
-
-
·495
A
R. S. NAYAK
•
v.
A.R.ANTULAY
February, 16, 1984 ·
[0. A. DESA!, R. S. PATHAK', 0. CHJNNAPPA REDDY,
A. P. SEN AND V. BALA!<RISHNA ERADI, JJ.J
8.
Preventfoi1 of Corruption ·Act, 1947-S . ... : 6-Jnterp'retatiOfl of Whether court
C
can tak~ .co_gnizance of o.(fences enu"1~rateu· iii _s. 6 agiiihst public S[YV'!_nf withouf
sanction 9/ co1npetent ·authority-Which is co1npetent authority to givk sanctio11-
What is r'e!evant date on which sanction be there_,:...For. ·attracting s.6 acCu.sed should·.
he a public serl'ant both on date oj o.lfenCe and on date when court, .takes cognizon~e
pf offe'nce. In cases Where accused holds several offices each One of. which makes him
publi.c· serVaiit-Whether sanction of corripeteizt -a~thorilies of all the. . offices necessary
or whether.· sanction o.f that cdmpetent authoritY alone under which public servant has
D ·
lnisus~d his offipe· is sufficient.
Indian Penal Code-s.21, clauses (3}, (7) and 02) (a)-Defenition 'of ~Public
•servant'-$cope oj....:....Whether Memf?er -of State Legisl~tive· Assembly .a 'public' Ser- ·
vant'. "Express qns 'Qr, 'pay', in the pay "of, and 'Government, nsed 1"n s. 21,eXp/afned.
+
.Construction~of Statutes-.Rule of:._Const1;11ct on n1ust advance
obj~ct Of Act-
Court 1nust give' effect tO natural 1neaning of words-In case of atizhig_uity court must
.E
ascertain. intenatio~1 oflegisfature behind Act;_Cour{ can. take h~lp of external aids-·
"r· While.c,onst~ucting anc_ient. statute court can.look.at surrOunding circumstances when
statute was endcted. ·
Words and Phrases-Wordf 'or· and· 'pay,11iea1iing_of, Phrase 'in ihe flay of;- .
. ' .
.
Explained.
•
}-
The. appellant, R:S. Nayak, llled·a complaint against the reSpondent,· A.R.
Antulay, ·:i public servant -being the Chief Minister of MaharaShtra siate, under
ss: 161, 165 I.P.C. ands. 5·~f tl:ie Pi"evCntion·of Corruption Act, 1947 (1947 Act)
allegi·ng_abus~· of offi.Ce of Cliief Ministef. The complaint.was rejected on account.
of absence of nrcessary sanction of the Govern·Or of Maharashtra · State under s.6
F
•
of the 1947 Act t6 prOsecutc the i'espondcn,t. .Aftet the G~vemor issued neceSsary
sanction, the apJ:,ellaht" filed _a fresh complaint in the Court of .Special Jud~ aiainst
. the, respondenf on the same grounds. Hciwe"ver, . on the date of.. filing fresh corn- . G
plaint the_respi:>~derit had a'Iready resigned as Chief Minister. The respondent cOn-·
!.. . tended that the SpeCial Judge ha~ no jurisdiction to try him under. s. 7 of the Cdmi.
...
' . nal Law Amendment Act, 1952 and that no cognizance could be iake!l ~n~ private
complaint. The· Special Judge rejected both the contentions. Jn the· rneantinie the
State GoVernment issued ·a notification under s. 7(2) of tlie Crii:ninal Law. Amend-
ment Act~ 1752 under whi.ch the· ·case was transfe~r¢ to another. S~ia.I JudgC'. In
~ crin1inal revisiorl. applic_atioO filed. by the repsondent aga.inst the· order of earlier
•
H
A
c
·D
E
F
•
.G
• H
496
SUPREME CQURT REPORTS
[1984] 2 s.c.R.
Special Judge, a Division Ben~h of th~ High Court held .that the Soecail Judge had·
·jurisdiction to try ihe reSpondent 3.nd that the private complaint ~vas maintainable.
'Wh.en the latter Sp~ial Judge-proceeded with the case th_e respondent fi!C:d an appli-
·cation for his discharge on the grounQs that the charge agai~st hin1 was baseless
""and· that he beiilg· a Me1nber of Legislative -Assenibly (M.L.A) requisite sanction.
under s .. 6. of tht 1947 Act waS necesSary. The Special Judge discharged the respon-
)... ;
dent holding that the -respondent being ML A \Vas a public servant within s. 2-1
(ll)(ri) of LP.C~ and in the absence Of the sanction of-the Legisl{ltivc- Assembly
'he "could not take ~ognizapce of 6ffeh~e: The sPecial Judge ai_so held that the 'inate-
r.ia·l date fo1· deciding the ap'pliciLbility- of s .. 6 Of the 1947 ACt was the date on whicl)
th¢ Court waS askbd to take cognizance of the offence. The.appel!ani challenged
the order of the Sp~ial Judge in this Appeal.·
The questions which arose for consideratio11 were:-
(a) What is- the relevant date with 1eference to which a valid sanction is a
·a' pre~requisitc .for the prosecutiOn of a public servant' for offences enu-
merated-ins. ·6 of the 1947 Act ?
..\.
(b) If the accused hcilds_ Several_ offices occupyi.ng
ea~h of w'hich n1akes _)-
hin1 a public-servant, ·is sanction or each one of the competent authori~
tiExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.