RAGHUNATH ANANT GOVILKAR versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

Citation: [2008] 2 S.C.R. 580 · Decided: 08-02-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

J 
[2008] 2 S.C.R. 580 
A 
RAGHUNATH ANANT GOVILKAR 
_J. ~ ;
I 
II. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal No. '279 of 2008) 
B 
FEBRUARY 8, 2008 
(DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.) 
__.. 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
1 
c 
s. 197 - Prosecution of public servant - Sanction for -
HELD: Before s. 197 can be invoked, it must be shown that the 
official concerned was accused of an offence alleged to have 
been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in 
discharge of his official capacity - It is quality of the act which 
is important and protection of the section is available if the act 
D falls within the scope and range of.official duty of public servant 
...:... On facts, offences alleged to have been committed by 
)t 
delinquent u/ss 420, 465, 466, 467,468 and 471 /PC cannot 
be related to any official duty - Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 420, 
~ 
465, 466,467,468 and 471. 
E 
s. 197 - Sanction for prosecution of retired public servant 
- HELD: expression "was" employed after "is" in the section 
makes need for sanction applicable even in cases where a 
retired public servant is sought to be prosecuted. 
F 
Penal Code, 1860: 
·~ 
~ 
SS. 406, 409 and 120-B - HELD: SS. 406 and 409 are 
cognate offences in which common component is criminal 
breach of trust - Supreme Court having held that in regard to 
offence uls 409 rlw 120-B it is no part of duty of public servant 
G to enter into a criminal conspiracy for committing breach of 
trust, the position will not be different if offence is uls 406 r/w 
.,__ 
120-B /PC vis-a-vis s.197 Cr.P. C. -
Code of Criminal 
Procedure, 1973. 
H 
580 
.-"" \ 
RAGHUNATH ANANT GOVILKAR v. STATE OF 
581 
MAHARASHTRAAND ORS. 
~ '· 
·-4 
Words and Phrases: 
A 
'Official act', 'Official ·duty' - Meaning of in the context of 
s.197 Cr.PC. 
An FIR was registered against the appellant with the 
allegations that he, while working with the Maharashtra B 
Housing and Area Development Authority, made false 
-4, 
allotment of premises to various persons, under his 
• 
signatures and issued rent receipts so that the said 
a!lottees could claim that they were in possession of the 
tenements though, in fact, the said tenements were vacant c 
and were not in possession of MHADA; and thereby 
committed offences punishable u/ss 420, 465,466A67 ,468 
and 471 IPC, The appellant filed an application before the 
trial court for his discharge in terms of s.228 of the Code 
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 primarily on the grounds that D 
>. 
no sanction for his prosecution was obtained and that in 
view of Rule 27 of the Maharashtra Civil Services 
Al\ 
{Pension) Rules, 1982, the proceedings could not have 
been initiated after his retirement. The trial court rejected 
the application holding that the complaint was filed before 
E 
the retirement of the accused, and, therefore, r.27 of the 
Pension Rules had no application; and that since the acts 
committed by the accused did not fall within the ambit of 
official duty, question of sanction u/s 197 Cr.P.C. did not 
.... 
arise. The High Court also dismissed the petition of the 
accused holding that when cognizance was taken, the F 
accused had ceased to be a public servant. 
In the instant appeal filed by the accused, it was 
. contended for the appellant that the acts were done by 
him while he was in service and the same had link with G 
-\ 
his 'official duty and, therefore, sanction in terms of s.197 
Cr.P.C. was necessary. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 A court, as envisaged by s.197 Cr.P.C. is 
H 
582 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 2 S.C.R. 
A precluded from entertaining a complaint or taking notice 
of it or exercising jurisdiction if it is in respect of a public 
servant who is accused of an ,offence alleged to have 
been committed during-the discharge of his official duty. 
The mandatory character of the protection afforded to a 
I 
-) 
B public servant is brought out by the expression "no court 
shall take cognizance of such offence except with the 
previous sanction". Use of the words 'no' and 'shall' make f-
it abundantly clear that the bar on the exercise of power 
by the court to take cognizance of any offence is absolute 
c and complete. The very cognizance is barred. That is, the 
complaint cannot be taken notice of. [para 11] [590-C-G] 
Bakhshish Singh Brar vs. Gurmej Kaur 1987(4) SCC 663 
- relied on. 
0 
1.2 Before Section 197 Cr.P.C. can be invoked, it must 
be shown that the official concerned was accused 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.