STATE OF MAHARASHTRA versus RAMDAS SHRINIVAS NAYAK & ANR.

Citation: [1983] 1 S.C.R. 8 · Decided: 28-07-1982 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: O. CHINNAPPA REDDY · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
.STATE OF MAHARASIITRA 
v. 
RAMDAS SHRINIVAS NAYAK & ANR. 
July 28, 1982 
(0. CHJN1'iAPPA REDDY AND A.P. SEN, JJ.] 
• 
Evidenc~Conclusivt proof of statement1 recorded in the judgment-Any 
concession made before the court and as recorded in the judgment cannot be res1/ed 
later, except in rare end appropriate cases-Stage at which the circumstances of . ~\..: 
the record to be rectified, explained-Constitution of India, Article 136-lnterfe-
rence by the_Supreme Court, impermi11ible. 
Sanction for the prosecution of the Chief Minister under Sectio"n 6 of the · "' 0 
Prtvention ofC<?rruption Act-Whether the Governor should act in hisdi1cretion 
or with the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers-Constitution of India, 1950, 
Article 163. 
Dismissing the Special Leave Petition, the Court, 
HELD : 1:1. Supreme Court is bound to accept the statement of the 
judges recorded in their judgment and, therefore, it cannot launch into an inquiry 
as to what transpired in the High Court. It is simply not done. Public policy 
bars such an action and judicial decorum restrains it. [12 CJ 
1:2. Supreme Court cannot allow the Statement of the judges to be 
contradicted by statements at the Bar or by ~ffidavit and other evidence, Matters 
of juaicial record are unquestionable and not open to doubt. Judges-cannot be 
dragged into the arena. If 'the Judges say in. their judgments that something was 
done, said or admitted before them, that.has to be the last word on ihe subject. 
Judges record is conclusive. [12 C-E] 
J :~. If a party thinks that the happenings in court have been wrongly 
recorded in a judgment, it is incum~ent upon the party, while the matter is still 
fresh in the minds of the judges, to call the attention of the very Judges who have 
made the record to the fact that the statement made vfitb· regard to his conduct 
was a statement that had been made in erior .. That is the only way. to have the 
record corrected. If no such step is taken, the nlatter must necessaril>'.' end there. 
Of cotlrse, a party may rcsilc and an Appellate Court may_ permit him; in rare 
and appropriate cases to rcsilc from a concession on the ground that the conces-
sion was made on a wrong appreciation of the law and had led to gross injustice, 
but he ~ay not calJ in quf:stion the very fact of making the ~oncession as recorded 
in the judgment. (12 F-H, 13 A] 
; · 
· 
.. 
> 
' 
i. 
• f 
\>, 
MAiiARASirtRA v. ilAMl>AS (Chinitappa fteddy, J.) 
R•x v. M•llor 7 Cox C.C. 454, quoted with approval. 
Madhus'udan v. Chandrawati, A.J.R. 1917 P.C. 30; King Emperor v. 
•' Bar•nd1a Ku,,;ar Ghose, 28 C.W.N. 170: Sarai Chandra v. Blbhabatl D•bl, 34 Cal. 
L.J. 302: Samasundaram v. Subramanian, A.LR 1926 P.C. 136; approved. 
2. In the facts and circumstances of the ·present case, it is clear that, 
when there is to be a prosecudon of the Chief Minister, the Governor would, 
while determining whether sanction for sUcb prosecution should be granted or 
not under sectiOn 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, as a matter of prop-
riety, necessarily act io bis own discretion and not on the advice of the Council 
of Ministers. [14 F-G] 
3. In the instant case, the cause of justice would in no way be advanced 
by permitting the state of Maharashtra to now resilc from the cOncession so 
ntade. On the other hand the . concession was rightly made before the High 
Court to advance the cause of justice. [IS A) 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Petition for.Special Leave 
Jo Appeal (CRL) No. 1523 of 1_982. 
From the judgment and order dated the 12th April, 19d2 of 
the Bombay High Court in Criminal Revision Application No. 1742 
of 1981. 
· 
A 
B 
c 
D 
L.N. Sinha, Attorney General, Dr• Y.S. Chitale, and Miss A. 
Subhashini for the petitioner. 
E 
'Soll J. Sorabjee and Miss Rani Jethma/ani for Respondent 
:No. 1., 
A.K. Sen and B.R. Honda for Respondent No. 2. 
The Order of the Court was delivered by 
••• 
. CHINNAPPA RBDDf, J. Abdul Rehm~n Antulay was the Chief 
Minister of the State of Maharashtra till January 12, 1982. While 
F 
he was yet holding the office of Chief Minister one Ramdas 
G 
Shrinivas Nayak, an erstwhile Member of the Maharashtra Legisla-
tive Assembly, professing a keen interest in clean administration 
and so keeping a watchful eye on centres of power and sources of 
corruption, filed a complaint against Shri Antulay, in the court of 
tb'.e Metropolitan Magistrate, 28th Court, Esplanade, Bombay 
, H 
charging him with the c

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