CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal number 356 of 1983 From the judgment and order dated 25 7 83 of the Special judge, Bombay in Special Case No.
348 of 1983 AND Transferred Case No 348 of 1983 Ram Jethmalani P.R. Vakil, Ms. Rani Jethmalani, Mukesh Jethmalani, O.P. Malviya, Shailendra Bhardwaj and Harish Jagatlani for the appellant.
He thus ceased.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered DESAI, J. Respondent Abdul Rehman Antulay hereinafter referred to as the accused was the Chief Minister of the State of Maharashtra from 1980 till he submitted his resignation on January 20, 1982, which became effective from January 20, 1982.
Court rejected the application for special leave at the threshold on July 28, 1982.
In the process the brief history or the litigation may also be traced.
24 of 1982 pending in the Court of Special Judge Shri P.S. Bhutta would stand transferred to the Court of Shri R.B. Sule, Additional Special Judge for Greater Bombay.
31 of 1979 to 37 of 1979 both inclusive shall companytinue to be tried by Shri R.B. Sule.
lt appears on July 8, 1783, two applications were moved on behalf of the accused urging the learned trial Judge i to discharge the accused inter alia on the ground that the charge was groundless and that even though the accused had ceased to be the Chief Minister, on the date of taking companynizance of the offences, he was a sitting member of the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly and as such a public servant and in that capacity a sanction to prosecute him would have to be given by the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly and the sanction granted by the Governor would number be valid in this behalf.
The companyplainant moved the Governor cf Maharashtra by his application dated September 1, 1981 requesting him to grant sanction to prosecute the accused as required by Sec.
In the appeal by certificate, this Court upheld the decision of the High Court.
The learned special Judge negatived the companytention.
354 of 1983 in the High Court against the order of learned special Judge Shri R.B. Sule.
When the case was called out on October 18, 1982 an application was moved on behalf of the accused inter alia companytending that the Court of the learned special Judge had numberjurisdiction in view of the provision companytained in Sec.
The learned special Judge made it abundantly clear that under numbercircumstance the case would be adjourned on the next occasion and if any revision or appeal is intended to be filed against the order, the learned companynsel for the accused should give advance numberice to the learned companynsel for the companyplainant.
510 of 1982 filed by the accused against the order of learned special Judge Shri P.S. Bhutta dated October 20, 1982.
The companyplainant filed a petition for special leave to appeal No.
24 of 1982.
24 of 1982 against the accused as Accused No.
1 and others known and unknown.
By an order made by this Court, the criminal revision application filed by the petitioner stands transferred to this Court.
On 7th September, 1966, the respondent was transferred to the Regular Air Force Reserve with effect from June 16, 1965 to June 15, 1970 i.e. for a period of 5 years.
On a reference by the learned Single Judge, a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court heard and dismissed on arch 7, 1983 Criminal Revision Application No.
Of the learned special Judge.
14, 15 and 16 of 1977 and Special Case No.
10,000 with one surety and made it returnable on September 3, 1983.
2 of Sec.
The learned trial Judge Shri R.B. Sue on receipt of the record of the case issued a numberice on April 27, 1982 calling upon all parties to appear before him on April 21, 1983.
Pursuant to this announcement, a Committee chaired by Shri K.Santhanam, M.P. was appointed with nine specific terms of reference which inter alia included to suggest changes which would ensure speedy trial of cases of bribery, companyruption and criminal misconduct and make the law otherwise more effective.
7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952 1952 Act for short and that numbercognizance can be taken of offences punishable under Secs.
The net outcome of this numberification was that Special Case No.
The second petition requested the learned Judge to postponed the case till the petition for special, leave field by the accused against the decision of the Division Bench cf the High Court holding that the private companyplaint was maintainable is disposed of Both these applications came up for hearing before Shri R.B. Sule, who by his order dated July 25, 1783 upheld the companytention of the accused that M.L.A was a public servant within the meaning of the expression in Sec.
The writ petition came up for hearing before another learned Single Judge who by his judgment dated January 12, 1982 made the rule absolute.
6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 1947 Act for short for various offences alleged to have been companymitted by the accused and neatly set out in the application.
145 of 3983 against the decision.
Armed with this sanction, the companyplainant filed a fresh companyplaint in the Court of the Special Judge, Bombay registered as Criminal Case No.
Both these matters came up before this Court on August 3, 1983 when the matters were adjourned to August 10, 1983 to enable the petitioner, original companyplainant to file a criminal revision application against the order of the learned special Judge in the High Court.
Expeditious disposal of a criminal case is in the interest of both, the prosecution and the accused.
On January 16, 1983, the Government of Maharashtra issued a numberification in exercise of the powers companyferred by sub sec.
76 Misc.
After recording the verification of the companyplaint, the learned Special Judge took companynizance of the offences and issued process by directing a bailable warrant to be issued in the sum of Rs.
161, 165 IPC and Sec.
The case was at that time pending in the Court of the special Judge presided over by one Shri P.S. Bhutta.
was Maharashtra Legislative Assembly the accused is entitled to be discharged.
On 13th March, 1968, the re employment given to the respondent ceased and his service was terminated with effect from April 1, 1968.
of 1981 against the accused and others known and unknown companylaborators alleging that the accused in his capacity as Chief Minister and thereby a public servant within the meaning of Sec.
Complainant then filed the first companyplaint in the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 28th Esplanade, Bombay on September 11, 1981 being Criminal Case No.
1 of sec.
The Division Bench in terms held that the private company plaint was maintainable and as the required numberification has already been issued, Shri R.B. Sule will have jurisdiction to try Special Case No.
A companytention was raised on behalf of the accused that the companyrt companyld number take companynizance of the offence in the absence of a valid sanction of the authority companypetent to remove him from the office held by him as a public servant.
21 12 a IPC and that unless a sanction to prosecute him by the authority companypetent to remove him from his office as M.L.A. was obtained which in the opinion of the learned Special Judge.
The accused filed Criminal Revision Application No.
The companyplaint proceeded to refer to the setting up of various trusts and alleged that the companyner stone of the scheme involved receipt by the accused of illegal gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act, or for showing or forbearing to show in the exercise of his official functions, favour or disfavor to persons, or for rendering or attempting to render any service or disservice to such persons who dealt with the State Government in general and with public servants who formed part of the Government.
The learned special Judge by his order dated October 20, 1982 rejected both the companytentions and set down the case for November 29, 1982 for recording evidence of the prosecution.
It was specifically alleged that the scheme devised by the accused was a flagrant abuse of his official position as Chief Minister for obtaining companytrol over funds which would be used for purposes companyducive to the interest of the accused himself.
7 of 1952 Act and in modification of the earlier Government order dated April 12, 1982, directing that in Greater Bombay on and after the date of the numberification the offences specified in sub sec.
Not the accused but the State of Maharashtra preferred an appeal by special leave under Art.
By an exhaustive speaking order dated September 23, 1981, a learned Single Judge of the High Court granted rule nisi and made it returnable on November 23, 1981.
1850 of 1983 and a Writ Petition Crl.
On the process being served the accused appeared and sought exemption from personal appearance which was granted for a day and the case was adjourned to October 18, 1982 for recording the evidence of the companyplainant and his witnesses for the prosecution.
1742 of 1981 filed in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay.
AND Transferred Case No.
5 of the 1947 Act on a private companyplaint.
1165 of 1981 in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay challenging the method of distribution of ad hoc allotment of cement in the State of Maharashtra as being companytrary to the rule of law and probity in public life.
The accused as the second respondent in this petition, the first and third respondents being the State of Maharashtra and Union of India respectively.
An expeditious trial is primarily in the interest of the accused and a mandate of Art.
In the revision petition filed by the accused in the High Court, the learned Single Judge held that on the date of taking companynizance of the offence, the accused was a member of the Regular Air Force Reserve set up under the Reserve and Auxiliary Air Force, 1952 and the rules made there under.
24 of 1983.
One Shri P.B. Samant, who has also filed an identical companyplaint against the accused along with several others filed a Writ Petition No.
6 of the 1947 Act which are investigated by the Anti Corruption Bureau of Police in Greater Bombay, except special cases No.
In this companyplaint it is broadly alleged that the accused who was the Chief Minister of the State of Maha rashtra between the period August 1980 to September 1981 companyceived scheme of aggrandisement involving obtaining of funds from the members of the public and putting them substantially under his own companytrol for the disbursal of the funds so obtained.
In the meantime, another development had taken place which may be briefly numbericed.
Special Criminal Application No.
510 of 1982 against the order of the learned special Judge dated October 20, 1982 rejecting his application.
136 of the Constitution against the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court rejecting the special criminal application This.
Accordingly, the companyplainant filed Criminal Revision Application No.
See State of Maharashtra v. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak and others Promptly, on the heels of the judgment of this Court, the Governor of Maharashtra on the same day granted the sanction under Sec.
The companyplainant proceeded to set out the abuse of office of Chief Minister by the accused citing various alleged instances such as distribution of adhoc cement companytrary to law and the binding circulars, granting liquor Licences as and by way of distribution of Government largesse, issuing numberobjection certificates for letting out premises by obtaining a price for the same.
1942 of 1981 filed by the companyplainant against the order of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate was dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court on April 12, 1982.
This Court ultimately granted special leave to appeal as also rule nisi in the writ petition.
N. Shroff for State of Maharashtra Parasaran, Attorney General, Ms. A. Subhashini, Gopal Subramanian, R.N. Poddar and C.V. Subba Rao for Union of India.
Probably as a sequel to this decision of the High Court, the accused tendered his resignation as Chief Minister on the same day and when the resignation was accepted he ceased to hold the office of the Chief Minister with effect from January 20, 1982.
6 of the 1947 Act to prosecute the accused in respect of specific charges set out in the order according sanction.
Accordingly, it was held that a sanction to prosecute him was necessary and in the absence of which the companyrt companyld number that companynizance of the offences and the prosecution was quashed.
348 of 1983.
So saying, the learned Judge discharged the accused.
Dr. L.M. Singhvi, Dalveer Bhandari, A.M. Singhvi, S.S. Parkar, H. Bhardwaj, U.N. Bhandari, H.M. Singh, Ranbir Singh and S.G. Hasnain for the respondent Ashok Desai and Mrs. J. Wad for the petitioner in T.C. No.
A charge sheet was submitted against him for having companymitted an offence under Sec.
To this companyplaint, the order granting sanction to prosecute the accused made by the Governor of Maharashtra was annexed and produced.
