CRI WP-3083-23.odt Amberkar IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3083 OF 2023 Bharat Atmaram Patil .. Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents ....................  Mr. Bharat A. Patil, Petitioner in Person  Ms. Sangeeta Phad, APP for State  Mr. Sachin Patil a/w Mr. Rohan Padane, Advocate for Respondent No. 2  Mr. Shirsath, PSI (EOW) ................... CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 22, 2026 P. C. : 1. Heard Petitioner in person; Ms. Phad, learned APP for State and Mr. Patil, learned Advocate for Respondent No. 2. 2. Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “CrPC”) seeking quashing of FIR No.48 of 2018 dated 27.02.2018 registered with Palghar Police Station for offences punishable under Section 420, 465, 467, 471, 472, 473, 474, 511, 120B IPC and 34 IPC, 1860 and consequential chargesheet / supplementary final report dated 22.04.2021 pending before JMFC Palghar as Regular Criminal Case No.31 of 2019 qua Petitioner only. Petitioner is arraigned as accused No.87 in the crime. Petitioner is a civil servant who joined the 1 of 13 CRI WP-3083-23.odt State Government service as Accounts Officer in 1999 and thereafter as Desk Officer, Mantralaya in the Secretariat service from 24.08.2000. He was promoted as Under secretary on 06.05.2010 and claims to have an unblemished service record. 3. I have heard the Petitioner appearing in person and Ms. Phad, learned APP for the State and with their able assistance perused the record. Submissions made by both have received due consideration of the Court. 4. Petition calls upon Court to answer a legal issue. Petitioner’s case is that since he is a State Government employee and therefore a public servant, sanction under Section 197(1)(b) of CRPC is not obtained by prosecution before indicting and arraigning the Petitioner as accused in the present crime. Therefore, Petitioner contends that FIR and resultant Supplementary Final Report / Chargesheet qua Petitioner be quashed and set aside since condition precedent contemplated under Section 197(1)(b) of CrPC is admittedly violated, thereby rendering prosecution of Petitioner unsustainable, rather illegal, non est and invalid. 5. Ms. Phad, learned APP in her usual fair mindedness contends that admittedly Petitioner is a public servant, rather employee of the State Government and if he is required to be prosecuted, prior 2 of 13 CRI WP-3083-23.odt sanction under Section 197(1)(b) of CrPC is required provided that his prosecution is for acts committed in the course of his normal day to day duties assigned to him. The aforesaid is the subtle distinction which the Court is called upon to adjudicate. 6. For adjudication of the aforementioned issue, brief relevant facts are stated herein under so as to enable the court to determine the above raised question of applicability of Section 197(1)(b) of CrPC in the present case:- 6.1. By Government Resolution dated 15.09.2010, education scheme namely 'Integrated Education for Disabled Children Scheme' was wound up and Special Teachers and Attendants engaged thereunder were directed to be absorbed in Local Self-Government bodies under a scheme of absorption (Samayojan). Due to complaints of irregularities, Secretary, Rural Development Department issued order dated 21.08.2017 and constituted a one-man committee headed by Petitioner to conduct surprise inspections of Zilla Parishads regarding these complaints of irregularities in such absorption. During the course of this inspection that large scale forgery by third parties was discovered. Subsequently, High-Level Inquiry Committee was constituted and enquiry was conduced by the Deputy Secretary, Rural Development Department who filed report dated 03.02.2018 stating that unidentified perpetrators prepared bogus Government Resolutions 3 of 13 CRI WP-3083-23.odt and forwarded the same together with a list of bogus employees to Palghar Zilla Parishad due to which illegal appointments were made. Thereafter Respondent No.2, erstwhile Additional Chief Executive Officer, Palghar Zilla Parishad filed FIR No.48 of 2018 dated 27.02.2018 implicated 82 persons as accused in the crime. 6.2. On 11.05.2018, notices under Sections 91 and 160 of the Cr.P.C. were issued to Petitioner to appear before Economic Offences Wing, Palghar, whereupon he voluntarily tendered his 108 specimen signatures and specimen handwriting samples in English and Marathi for comparison. 6.3. On 27.01.2021, nearly three years after registration of FIR and without issuance of statutory notice under Section 41A of CrPC, Petitioner was arrested and taken into custody. On 01.06.2021, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Palghar, enlarged Petitioner on bail. 6.4. Supplementary Chargesheet No. 37 of 2021 came to be filed on 22.04.2021. Sanction for prosecution under Section 197(1)(b) of CrPC dated 12.04.2021, signed by one Shri M.D. Jadhav, Deputy Secretary, is appended to the Petition. Subsequent to filing of Chargesheet, Additional Chief Examiner of Handwriting, CID, Aurangabad filed report on the disputed signatures. 4 of 13 CRI WP-3083-23.odt 6.5. There was also allegation that Petitioner received Rs. 27,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Seven Lakhs only) traceable only to an oral / written communication stated to have passed from one Shrimati Bane to the then Secretary, Rural Development Department. 7. It is seen that material placed on record prima facie shows that Petitioner is not named as accused in the principal FIR No. 48 of 2018 nor does his name figure in the High Level Enquiry Report dated 03.11.204 which forms the foundation of the prosecution’s case. Petitioner has been indicted on the basis of a statement of one Shrimati Bane recorded on 21.03.2018 wherein she states that she introduced certain persons to Petitioner and saw them meet him once or twice. According to the prosecution on the basis of this statement, the Petitioner is alleged to have conspired with identified perpetrator who prepared bogus government resolutions and forwarded the same with a list of bogus employees to Zilla Parishad Palghar for recruitment on the basis of which illegal appointments were made. Main charge of prosecution against Petitioner is of forgery alleging that his signature is appearing on bogus government orders, second charge against Petitioner is of he allegedly receiving amount of Rs.27 lakhs, however this charge is without any corroboration by prosecution, there is no tracing of any funds in the hands of Petitioner or his relatives, there is no instance or document of transfer, there is no recovery effected 5 of 13 CRI WP-3083-23.odt regarding this alleged amount and most importantly if such allegation of corruption persisted, provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ought to have been invoked. 8. Another factual circumstance which needs mention for adjudication of this Petition and to answer the issue squarely is that on 11.05.2018 Petitioner was called upon to appear before the EOW Palghar whereupon he voluntary tendered his 108 specimen signatures and specimen handwriting samples in English and Marathi for comparison and subsequent to filing of chargesheet. Thereafter Additional Chief Examiner of Handwriting, CID, Aurangabad has filed Report regarding the disputed signatures which does not prima facie indict the Petitioner at all. 9. It is in this background that prosecution case is built for indicting the Petitioner in the crime. Forensic Evidence is in regard to alleged Petitioner’s signature on some of the appointment orders and government resolutions which were sent to Palghar Zilla Parishad whereas factual evidence is on the basis of statements of co-accused alleging conspiracy. 10. If the factual case of prosecution is prima facie seen, it clearly hinges upon Petitioner’s official duties for which he was required to interact with the Zilla Parishad for various purposes in the line of his 6 of 13 CRI WP-3083-23.odt official duty. Petitioner has been at all material times a public servant. Record shows that Petitioner has rendered his services in the Food and Civil Supplies Department, General Administration Department, Public Health Department, Higher and Technical Education Department in Mantralaya as well as CEO of Western Maharashtra Devasthan Management Committee, Kholapur and was promoted as Undersecretary with effect from 06.05.2010. In October 2011 he was transferred to Revenue and Forest Department. On 09.12.2014 he joined Rural Development and Water Conservation Department. In April 2022, he was transferred to Industry, Labour and Energy Department where he still continues as under Undersecretary. 11. On 15.09.2010, Government Resolution was passed by School Education Department wherein Integrated Education for Disabled Children Scheme for Handicapped was closed and its was resolved that special teachers and attendants (peons) rendered surplus will be absorbed in local Self Governing Bodies under the scheme of absorption especially Zilla Parishads and Municipal Bodies. In this background, number of orders for absorption were issued by School Education Department to the concerned Zilla Parishad. Petitioner was the Undersecretary of Rural Development and Water Conservation Department which exercised power of superintendence and control over Zilla Parishads. It is seen that over a period of time the absorption 7 of 13 CRI WP-3083-23.odt orders of special teachers and attendants were stalled and therefore State Government by order dated 21.08.2017, appointed a Committee headed by the Secretary, Rural Education Department to carry out surprise inspection of Zilla Parishads and look into the complaints of wrong doing. The CEO of Palghar Zilla Parishad sent an official communication to the Secretary Rural Development Department flagging concerns about absorption of employees and hence High Level Inquiry was instituted where it was revealed that bogus Government Orders were prepared and forwarded to Palghar Zilla Parishad with list of bogus employees leading to bogus appointments having been made, therefore the crime came to be registered. In the FIR, 82 accused persons are named, subsequent investigation and one prosecution witness who is a co – accused has led to indictment of Petitioner as an accused person on the premise and basis that he had signed certain appointment orders as Undersecretary and sent them to Palghar Zilla Parishad. 12. It is in this factual background that Petitioner has argued that the purported sanction letter dated 12.04.2021 signed by the Deputy Secretary cannot be construed to be a valid sanction in the eyes of law since it does not bear signature of the proper sanctioning authority having sanctioned the prosecution, that Deputy Secretary is not the property sanctioning authority, that it does not disclose independent 8 of 13 CRI WP-3083-23.odt application of mind to the offence qua the Petitioner and that sanction issued by the Deputy Secretary is ante dated even before the Sanctioning Authority had even seen the papers. 13. It is seen that Petitioner is accused of cheating, forgery and conspiracy and it is alleged that Petitioner signed some of the orders and Government Resolutions. The purported sanction dated 12.04.2021 is admittedly issued by Deputy Secretary who is not the appropriate sanctioning authority. The issue for which Petitioner is indicted and arraigned as accused concerns the work he did in the line of his duty and therefore sanction under Section 197 (1)(b) of CrPC in the case of Petitioner is a condition precedent before invoking criminal action against him. The question of merits may arise later about the involvement and complicity of the Petitioner. He is a permanent civil servant and is entitled to constitutional protection and continuation of prosecution on the basis of invalid sanction cannot be permitted. I do not wish to opine on the merits of the matter at all since the issue argued before me is only with regard to applicability of provisions of Section 197(1)(b) of CrPC and validity and legality of sanction. 14. Copy of the Sanction order is appended at page 243 - 244. It is issued by the Deputy Secretary Rural Development. For the sake of reference copy of the sanction letter is scanned and reproduced below. 9 of 13 CRI WP-3083-23.odt 10 of 13 CRI WP-3083-23.odt 11 of 13 CRI WP-3083-23.odt 15. The authority issuing sanction is Deputy Secretary, Rural Development Department, and even otherwise the sanction does not show due consideration of the material on record qua Petitioner and therefore the same falls short of been considered as a valid sanction. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that sanction under section 197(1)(b) of CrPC is not an ideal formality but a solemn and sacrosanct act which affords protection to public servants against harassment through frivolous prosecution for acts done in the discharge of their official duty and that an invalid sanction vitiates the prosecution ab initio. Petitioner has referred to and relied upon the following decisions of the Supreme Court in support of this submission:- Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan v. State of Gujarat,1 P.K. Pradhan v. State of Sikkim2, Parkash Singh Badal v. State of Punjab3, and Devinder Singh v. State of Punjab4. 16. It is seen that the aforementioned decisions lay down comprehensive guidelines for determining whether sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is required and whether it has been validly accorded. The test consistently applied -whether there is a reasonable 1 (1997) 7 SCC 622 2 (2001) 6 SCC 704 3 (2007) 1 SCC 1 4 (2016) 12 SCC 87 12 of 13 CRI WP-3083-23.odt nexus between the act complained of and the discharge of official duty - is squarely satisfied here. The satisfaction of the sanctioning authority with regard to the reasonable nexus regarding the act complained and the discharge of official duty is not prima facie satisfied at all when the sanction order in the present case is seen. 17. Thus on both counts, namely, applicability of the provisions of Section 197(1)(b) as well as challenge to the purported sanction issued by the Deputy Secretary, I am unable to accept the submissions made by Ms. Phad to continue with the prosecution of the Petitioner qua the present crime in question any further. The Petition therefore stands allowed in terms of prayer clause “a” qua the Petitioner before the Court. It is clarified that this order is not passed on merits but only on the basis of applicability of Section 197(1)(b) qua the Petitioner before me who is a public servant and on the basis of the sanction required to prosecute him. All other contentions are otherwise kept expressly open as available to the parties in accordance with law. 18. Petition is allowed and disposed Amberkar [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] 13 of 13 RAVINDRA MOHAN AMBERKAR Digitally signed by RAVINDRA MOHAN AMBERKAR Date: 2026.09.22 11:57:36 +0530