RAGHUNATH ANANT GOVILKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) The challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the learned single Judge of the Mumbai High Court dismissing the Criminal Writ Petition filed by the appellant for quashing the proceedings pending before the Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 37th Court, Eaplanade. The appellant was the accused No. 10 in the said case. The allegation against the appellant was that while working with Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (in short MHADA) the appellant allotted premises to various persons under his signature, issued rent receipts so that the said persons could claim that they were in possession of the tenements, though in fact, the tenements, in question, were vacant and were not in possession of MHADA.

(3.) According to the prosecution the appellant committed offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 466, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short IPC). Before the trial Court, the appellant filed an application for discharge in terms of Section 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the Cr.P.C.) primarily on the ground that sanction was necessary for his prosecution. It was also submitted that proceedings could not have been initiated after his retirement in view of what has been stated under Rule 27 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 (in short Pension Rules). The application was dismissed by the trial Court. It was noted that the appellant was in Government service till 31-8-1989. The complaint was filed on 17-7-1989 which was treated as an FIR and, therefore, Rule 27 of the Pension Rules have no application. As regards the requirement of sanction in terms of Section 197, Cr.P.C. it was held that acts done by the accused did not fall within the ambit of official duty and, therefore, question of sanction did not arise.