STATE OF KERALA versus M.M. MANIKANTAN NAIR

Citation: [2001] 3 S.C.R. 203 · Decided: 25-04-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

ST A TE OF KERALA 
A 
.~ 
;. 
v. 
M.M. MANIKANTAN NAIR 
APRIL 25, 2001 
[K.T. THOMAS, R.P. SETHI AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.] 
B 
-,-
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
~ 
Section 362-Scope of-Judgment-Final order--Court has no power 
to review except to correct clerical or arithmetical error-Gram Panchayat- c 
Secretary-Prosecution-Order rejecting prayer for quashing prosecution 
for want of sanction to prosecute-Order attaining finality-Review and 
reversal of said final order held invalid 
Kera/a Panchayat Act, 1994: 
D 
..( 
Section 122-Scope of-Gram Panchayat-Secretary-Prosecution-
Sanction for prosecution-Not necessary when he has retired from service. 
The Respondent, Secretary ofa Gram Panchayat, was prosecuted under 
Sections 120B, 409, 468, 471 and 477 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read E 
-
with Sections 13(l)(c) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 
He filed on application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 
1973 for quashing criminal proceedings on the ground that no sanction to 
~l. 
prosecute him was obtained under Section 122 of the Kerala Panchayat Act, 
"' 
1994. Rejecting his contention the High Court passed an order dated.31st 
May, 2000 holding that there was proper sanction to prosecute and a prima F 
facie case was made out against the respondent. Thereafter the respondent 
filed a miscellaneous petition for clarification of the order dated 31st May, 
2000. By its order dated 13. 7.2000 the High Court reversed its earlier order 
and quashed criminal proceedings for want of proper sanction. Against the 
order dated 13. 7.2000 State of Kerala preferred appeal before this Court. / G 
Allowing the appeal and setting aside the impugned order, the Court 
-~ 
HELD: I. The High Court committed grave error in passing the 
impugned order. Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 
prohibits the court after it has signed its judgment or final order disposing H 
203 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
204 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001] 3 S.C.R. 
a case from altering or reviewing the said judgment or order except to 
correct a clerical or arithmetical error. This prohibition is complete and no 
criminal court can review its own judgment or order after it is signed. By 
the first order dated 31.05.2000 the High Court rejected the prayer of tbe 
I 
respondent for quashing the crimina~ proceeding. This order attained finality. 
By the impugned order, the High Court reversed its earlier order and 
quashed the criminal proceeding for want of proper sanction. By the impugned 
order the High Court has not corrected any clerical or arithmetical error. 
In fact the impugned order is an order of review, as the earlier order was 
reversed, which could not have been done as there is no such provision under 
the Code of Criminal Procedure, but there is an interdict against it. 
[205-H; 206-A-C] 
Hari Singh Mann v. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa & Ors., [20011 1 sec 
169, referred to. 
2. The language of Section 122 of the Kerala Panchayat Act, 1994 is 
clear and unambiguous. Sanction to prosecute the President, Executive 
Authority or members of a Panchayat is necessary for prosecution of any 
offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to 
act in the discharge of his official duty. If a person ceases to hold the above 
office on retirement or otherwise no sanction for prosecution is necessary. 
The petitioner who retired from the service could not claim protection under 
this section as he ceased to hold the post under the Panchayat. [206-G-H) 
State of Kera/a V: V. Pedmeanabhan, (1999) 5 SCC 690 and R. 
Balakrishna Pillai v. State of Kera/a & Anr., (1996) 1 SCC 478, referred 
to. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 
549 of 2001. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.7.2000 of the Kerala High Court 
in Crl.M.P. No. 3062 of2000. 
/ 
G. Prakash for. the Appellant. 
E.M.S. Anam for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
PHUKAN, J. Leave is granted. 
H 
The respondent has been booked for trial along with another accused 
'.:>.. -.. 
r 
:" 
>-
-' 
~ 
~-
STATE OF KERALA v. M.M. MANIKANTAN NAIR [PHUKAN, J.] 205 
for offences punishable under Section 120B, 409, 468, 471and477 ofIPC and A 
,_I 
Section 13(l)(c) read with Sectibn 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 
1988. The allegation against the respondent No. l was that while he was 
working as the Secretary of Melukavu Grama Panchayat along with another 
accused, who was the Head Cle

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