REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

A.R.ANTULAY Appellant

V/S

R.S.NAYAK Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

SHEONANDAN PASWAN V. STATE OF BIHAR [RELIED ON]
SHIVASHANKAR PRASAD SHAH V. BAIKUNTH NATH SINGH [RELIED ON]
KESHARDEO CHAMRIA VS. RADHA KISSEN CHAMRIA [RELIED ON]
BHATIA CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED VS. D C PATEL [DISTINGUISHED]
KIRAN SINGH VS. CHAMAN PASWAN [RELIED ON]
SURAJ MALI MOHTA AND CO VS. A V VISVANATHA SASTRI [RELIED ON]
BENGAL IMMUNITY COMPANY LIMITED VS. STATE OF BIHAR [RELIED ON]
ASGARALI NAZARALI SINGAPOREWALLA VS. STATE OF BOMBAY [RELIED ON]
KAILASH NATH VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
BHAJAHARI MONDAL VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [RELIED ON]
ROMESH CHANDRA ARORA VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]
ROMESH CHANDRA ARORA VS. STATE [DISTINGUISHED]
SATYADHYAN GHOSAL VS. DEORAJIN DEBI [EXPLAINED AND RELIED ON]
K M NANAVATI VS. STATE OF BOMBAY NOW MAHARASHTRA [DISTINGUISHED]
DARYAO HURMAT S O SATWA MAHENDRA LAL JAINI ROOP CHAND BRUHAN KUMAR SADASHIV RAMCHANDRA DALVI VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [RELIED ON]
UJJAM BAI VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [RELIED ON]
PREM CHAND GARG VS. EXCISE COMMISSIONER U P [APPROVED]
PREM CHAND GARG VS. EXCISE COMMISSIONER U P [FOLLOWED]
ITTYAVIRA MATHAI VS. VARKEY VARKEY [DISTINGUISHED]
JANG SINGH VS. BRIJ LAL [RELIED ON]
RAJA SOAP FACTORY VS. S P SHANTHARAJ [RELIED ON]
RAJA SOAP FACTORY VS. S P SHANTHARAJ [RELIED ON]
SHASTRI YAGNAPURUSHDASJI THE ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. MULDAS BHUNDARDAS VAISHYA:MULDAS BHUNDARDAS VAISHYA [RELIED ON]
NARESH SHRIDHAR MIRAJKAR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
NARESH SHRIDHAR MIRAJKAR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [FOLLOWED]
GURCHARAII DASS CHADHA VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
LAXMIPAT CHORARIA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [RELIED ON]
TILOKCHAND AND MOTICHAND VS. H B MUNSHI [RELIED ON]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. RAMPRAKASH P PURI [RELIED ON]
BHAGAT RAM STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN:RAM SWAROOP [DISTINGUISHED]
M L SETHI VS. R P KAPUR [RELIED ON]
NAWABKHAN ABBASKHAN VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [RELIED ON]
MANEKA GANDHI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
PRESIDENT OF INDIA VS. SPECIAL COURTS BILL 1978 [DISTINGUISHED]
P S R SADHANANTHAM VS. ARUNACHALAM [RELIED ON]
V C SHUKLA VS. STATE DELHI ADMINISTRATION [DISTINGUISHED]
S L KAPOOR VS. JAGMOHAN [REFERRED TO]
R S NAYAK PADMAKAR BALKRISHNA SAMANT VS. A R ANTULAY:ABDUL REHMAN ANTULAY [REVERSED]
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF INDIA VS. LACHMA DEVI [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The main question involved in this appeal, is whether the directions given by this court on 16/02/1984, as reported in R. S. Nayak v. A. R. Antulay were legally proper. The next question is, whether the action and the trial proceedings pursuant to those directions, are legal and valid. Lastly, the third consequential question is, can those directions be recalled or set aside or annulled in these proceedings in the manner sought for by the appellant, In order to answer these questions certain facts have to be borne in mind.

(2.) The appellant became the Chief Minister of Maharashtra on or about 9/06/1980. On 1/09/1981, respondent 1 who is a member of the Bharatiya Janata Party applied to the governor of the State under S. 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') and S. 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for sanction to prosecute the appellant. On September 11, 1981, respondent 1 filed a complaint before the Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Bombay against the appellant and other known and unknown persons for alleged offences under S. 161 and 165 of the Indian Penal Code and S. 5 of the Act as also under S. 384 and 420 read with S. 109 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate refused to take cognizance of the offences under the Act without the sanction for prosecution. Thereafter a criminal revision application being CRA No. 1742 of 1981 was filed in the High court of Bombay, by respondent 1.

(3.) The appellant thereafter on 12/01/1982 resigned fromthe position of Chief Minister in deference to the judgment of the Bombay High court in a writ petition filed against him. In CRA No. 1742 of 1981 filed by respondent 1 the division bench of the High court held that sanction was necessary for the prosecution of the appellant and the High court rejected the request of respondent 1 to transfer the case from the court of the Additional Chief 'metropolitan Magistrate to itself.

Click here to view full judgment.

A R ANTULAY Vs. R S NAYAK

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address