STATE OF MAHARASHTRA versus KESHAV RAMCHANDRA PANGARE AND ANR.

Citation: [1999] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 260 · Decided: 01-11-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
v. 
KESHA V RAMCHANDRA PAN GARE AND ANR. 
NOVEMBER I, 1999 
[K.T. THOMAS AND M.B. SHAH, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860/Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947/Criminal 
Procedure Code, 19731 Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules. 1982: 
Sections 120-B, 406, 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471, 477 and 1091 Sections 
C 5(1) (d) and 5(2)/ Sections 4, 468 (2) and 470 (3)/Rule 27 (3)-Respondent 
charged for the offences of corruption, misappropriation etc. after his 
retirement-Cognizance taken four years after commission of offence-
Sanction obtained-Respondent challenged the proceedings in writ petition-
Protection under Pension Rule 27 sought on the ground of lapse of four years 
D after the commission of offence-Writ Petition allowed and proceedings 
quashed by the Court-On appeal, Held: Pension rule 27 is in the context 
of right of the Government to withold or withdraw pension-Rule 27 does 
not effect criminal trial under Cr.P.C.-There is no period of limitation in 
Cr.P.C. for an offence punishable with imprisonment exceeding three years-
Time required for obtaining sanction is excluded-Trial against respondent 
E not barred by /imitation-Service law. 
Respondent No. 1 who was working in the Public Works Department in 
the State of Maharashtra retired from service in 1987. In 1990, R-1 alongwith 
some others was chargesheeted for offences under Sections 120-B, 406, 420, 
465, 466, 467, 468, 471, 477 and 109 IPC alongwith Section S(l)(c) read 
F with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The Special Court, 
after obtaining the sanction, took cognisance and issued process. The 
respondents challenged the said proceedings before the High Court in a writ 
petition on the ground that the complaint was filed beyond the period of four 
years from the date of commission of the offence and therefore, it was barred 
G by Rule 27 (3) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982. The 
said writ petition was allowed and the proceedings were quashed. Hence this 
appeal 
H 
The appellant contended that Rule 27 of the Pension Rules cannot have 
an overriding effect to the provisions of Cr.P.C. It was also contended that 
260 
.
( 
,
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. K.R. PANGARE 
261 
Rule 27 of the pension Rules was not applicable to prosecution in a criminal A 
court. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: l.l. Section 4 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 specifically 
provides that all offences under the IPC shall be investigated, inquired into, B 
tried and otherwise dealt with according to the provisions contained therein. 
Admittedly, against respondent No. 1 chargesheet is filed for the offences 
punishable under IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and he is to be 
tried as per the procedure prescribed under the Cr.P.C. [264-B-C) 
1.2. Chapter XXXVI of Cr.P.C. containing Sections 467 to 473 deals C 
with limitation for taking cognizance of certain offences. Section 468 provides 
for a bar for taking cognisance of an offence after the expiry of period of 
limitation prescribed under sub-section 2. Period of three years is provided 
for an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year 
but not exceeding three years. If the offence is punishable with imprisonment D 
for a term exceeding three years, then there is no period of limitation 
prescribed under the Cr.P.C. Further sub-section 3 of Section 470 excludes 
the time required for obtaining sanction where the previous sanction of the 
Government or any other authority is required for the institution of any 
prosecution for an offence. Hence, it is apparent that as the offences for which 
respondent No. 1 is charge-sheeted are punishable with imprisonment for a E 
term exceeding three years, there is no period of limitation prescribed under 
Section 468 Cr.P.C. In any case, where period of limitation is required to be 
taken for consideration, sub-section 3 of Section 470 Cr.P.C. excludes the 
period required for obtaining previous sanction for institution of prosecution. 
In the present case, sanction of prosecution was obtained on 25-08-1989. F 
Hence, if at all the period of limitation is applicable, the time required for 
obtaining sanction is to be excluded. Therefore, it cannot be stated that the 
prosecution instituted against the respondent is barred by any period of 
limitation. [264-8, C, F, G, H; 265-A) 
2.1. Whether or not a government sen'ant should be prosecuted for an G 
offence committed by him ob

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