http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 1 of 48

PETITIONER:

R. S. NAYAK

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

A. R. ANTULAY

DATE OF JUDGMENT16/02/1984

BENCH:

DESAI, D.A.

BENCH:

DESAI, D.A.

PATHAK, R.S.

REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)

SEN, A.P. (J)

ERADI, V. BALAKRISHNA (J)

CITATION:

1984 AIR 684 1984 SCR (2) 495

1984 SCC (2) 183 1984 SCALE (1)198

CITATOR INFO :

RF 1984 SC 718 (2)

F 1985 SC1655 (4,5)

RF 1986 SC2045 (36)

RF 1987 SC1140 (3)

1988 SC1531 (145)

RF 1992 SC1531 (23)

RF 1992 SC1701 (7,9)

ACT:

Prevention of Corruption Act 1947-S. 6-Interpretation

of. Whether court can take congizance of offences enumerated

in s. 6 against public servant without sanction of competent

authority-Which is competent authority-Which is competent

authority to give sanction-What is relevant date on which

sanction be there-For attracting s. 6 accused should be a

public servant both on dat of offence and on date when court

takes congizance of offence. In cases where accused holds

several offices each one of which makes him public servant-

Wether sanction of competent authorities of all the offices

necessary or whether sanction of that competent authority

alone under which public servant has misuse his office is

sufficient.

Indian Penal Code s.21 clauses (3).(7) and (12) (a)-

Definition of ’public servant’-Scope of-Whether Member of

State Legislative Assembly a public servant. Expressions or

pay in the pay of and Government used in s. 21 explained.

Construction of Statutes-Rule of-Construct on must

advance object of Act-Court must give effect to natural

meaning of words-In case of ambiguity court must ascertain

intention of legislature behind Act-Court can take help of

external aids-While constructing ancient statute court can

look at surrounding circumstances when statue was enacted.

Words and Phrases- Words ’or an ‘pay, meaning of Phrase

’in the pay of, -Explained.

HEADNOTE:

The appellant, R.S. Nayak, filed a complaint against

the respondent, A.R. Antualy, a public servant being the

Chief Minister of Maharashtra State under ss. 161, 165

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 2 of 48

I.P.C. and s. 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947

(1947 Act) alleging abuse of office of Chief Minister. The

complaint was rejected on account of absence of necessary

sanction of the Governor of Maharashtra State under s. 6 of

the 1947 Act to prosecute the respondent. After the Governor

issued necessary sanction, the appellant filed a fresh

complaint in the Court of Special Judge against the

respondent on the same grounds. However, on the date of

filing fresh complaint the respondent had already resigned

as Chief Minister. The respondent contended that the Special

Judge had no jurisdiction to try him under s. 7 of the

Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952 and that no cognizance

could be taken on private complaint. The Special Judge

rejected both the contentions. In the meantime the State

Government issued a notification under s. 7(2) of the

Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1752 under which the case was

transferred to another Special Judge. In a criminal revision

application filed by the respondent against the order of

earlier

496

Special Judge, a Division Bench of the High Court held that

the Social Judge had jurisdiction to try the respondent and

that the private complaint was maintainable. When the latter

Special Judge proceeded with the case the respondent filed

an application for his discharge on the grounds that the

charge against him was baseless and that he being a Member

of legislative Assembly (M.L.A) requisite sanction under s.

6 of the 1947 Act was necessary. The Special Judge

discharged the respondent holding that the respondent being

M.L.A was a public servant within s. 21 (12)(a) of I.