STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. RAMDAS SHRINIVAS NAYAK & ANR

Citation: [1983] 1 S.C.R. 8

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: O. CHINNAPPA REDDY, A.P. SEN

Judgment text

STATE OF MAHARASIITRA v. RAMDAS SHRINIVAS NAYAK & ANR. July 28, 1982 (0. CHJN1'iAPPA REDDY AND A. P. SEN, JJ. ] • Evidenc~Conclusivt proofof 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-lnterference by the_Supreme Court, impermi11ible. Sanction for the prosecution of the Chief Minister under Sectio"n 6 ofthe · "' 0 Prtvention ofC '. '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 concession 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] ; · · 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 propriety, 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 i. Court to advance the cause of justice.

[IS A) CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Petition for. Special Leave f 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. · L. N. Sinha, Attorney General, Dr• Y. S. Chitale, and Miss A. Subhashini for the petitioner. '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 he was yet holding the office of Chief Minister one Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak, an erstwhile Member of the Maharashtra Legislative 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 , charging him with the commission of offences punishable under ss. 161 and 185 of the Indian Penal· Code and 5 of the Prevention _; ;:. >' . '·' 1. , ',. '. iil SUPREME COURT REPORt! I. r1! J83j j s. c. lt. of Corruption Act. The substance of the allegation was that · Sbri Antulay founded and controlled a number of trusts called by various names freely; and· falsely . making it appear that the Prime Minister and the Government of Maharashtra were either inferested or had sponsored the_ trusts, collected contributions and donations for the alleged benefit of the Trusts by misuse of his position 8 and power by dispensing favours and holding out threats, and, thereby placed himself in a position where he could juggle and manipulate a sum of over Rs. five crores. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate refused to enteratain the complaint holding that • it . was not maintainable without the requisite sanction of the Government un. der s.

6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Against ·the order of the learned. Metropolitan Magistrate, R. s. · Nayak presented a Criminal Revision Application to the High Court of Maharashtra purporting to ·be under ss. 407 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Art.. 228 of the Constitution. The • 0 • State of Maharashtra and Shri ·Antulay were impleaded as Responn' dents. During the course of the pendency of the Criminal Revision Application', Shri Antualy resigned his position as the Chief Minister of the State of ·Maharashtra. By an elaborate order dated April 12, 1982, Gadgil and Kofwal, JJ upheld the view that sanction was necessary and dismissed the Revision Application. While dismissing the application, the learned Judges noticed that an applic1tion had 'been made to the Governor of Maharashtra for grant of the requisite sanction" and . observed that the applicat_ion should not be decided by the Law Minister or any.

other Minister, but that , "it 'deserved to be decided by the Governor in his indivi_dual discretion". The State of Maharashtra though not aggrieved by the dismissal of _the Criminal Revision Application, seeks· special leave to appeal to this Court under Art. 136 of the Constitution against the judgment of the High Court of Maharashtra. in so far as the judgment may be said to have directed the Governor of Maharashtra to exercise his individual · discretion in deciding the question whether sanction· ~hould or should not be granted to prosecute Shri Antulay. The learned Attorney General, who appeared for the State of Maharashtra, raised the contention that it was not for the Court to decide whether in_ respect of a particular matter, the Governor should act in his discretion or with the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers and that under Art.

163(2), ·if any question arose whether any matter was or was not a matter· as respects which the Governor was by or under the Constitution required 10 act in bis discretion, the decision of the i. iAl-iARASkTRA v. RAMDAS (thinnappa i?. eddy, J. ) if Governor in his discretion was final, and the validity of anything done by the -Governor was not liable to be called in question on the ground · that he ought . not t -· ' ' ,,. ,. .