BHARAT ATMARAM PATILversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

                                                                           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 Punjab 3,

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. ]
                     Digitally signed
                     by RAVINDRA
           RAVINDRA MOHAN
           MOHAN    AMBERKAR
           AMBERKAR Date:
                     2026.09.22
                     11:57:36 +0530




                                                                                  13 of 13