Holding

A court cannot review its own final order under Section 362 CrPC, and sanction under Section 122 is required only while the official holds office; therefore the High Court’s order quashing the prosecution was invalid.

Summary

The Secretary of a Gram Panchayat was prosecuted for offences under the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act. He moved the High Court under Section 482 CrPC to quash the prosecution, arguing that no sanction under Section 122 of the Kerala Panchayat Act was obtained. The High Court first dismissed the petition on 31 May 2000, but later, in a clarification order on 13 July 2000, reversed its own decision and quashed the proceedings. The State appealed, and the Supreme Court held that under Section 362 CrPC a court cannot review or alter its own final order except to correct clerical errors, making the High Court's later order invalid. The Court also interpreted Section 122 to require sanction only while the official holds office; since the respondent had retired, no sanction was needed. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the High Court’s order set aside.

Issues considered

Whether a High Court may review or reverse its own final order under Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Whether sanction under Section 122 of the Kerala Panchayat Act, 1994 is required for prosecution of a retired Panchayat official.
Whether the lack of sanction bars cognizance of the offences alleged against the respondent.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 197, s. 362, s. 482
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 120B, s. 409, s. 468, s. 471, s. 477
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988s. 13(1)(c), s. 13(2), s. 19

Subjects

sanctionreview of judgmentSection 362 CrPCKerala Panchayat Actretired public servantquashing of criminal proceedingsfunctus officio

Judgment

.~
STA TE OF KERALA A
;.
v.
M.M. MANIKANTAN NAIR

APRIL 25, 2001

[K.T. THOMAS, R.P. SETHI AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.] B

-,- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
~

Section 362-Scope of-Judgment-Final order--Court has no power
to review except to correct clerical or arithmetical error-Gram Panchayat- c
Secretary-Prosecution-Order rejecting prayer for quashing prosecution
for want of sanction to prosecute-Order attaining finality-Review and
reversal of said final order held invalid

Kera/a Panchayat Act, 1994:
D
..(
Section 122-Scope of-Gram Panchayat-Secretary-Prosecution-
Sanction for prosecution-Not necessary when he has retired from service.

The Respondent, Secretary ofa Gram Panchayat, was prosecuted under

- Sections 120B, 409, 468, 471 and 477 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read
with Sections 13(l)(c) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
He filed on application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
E

1973 for quashing criminal proceedings on the ground that no sanction to
~l. prosecute him was obtained under Section 122 of the Kerala Panchayat Act,
"' 1994. Rejecting his contention the High Court passed an order dated.31st
May, 2000 holding that there was proper sanction to prosecute and a prima F
facie case was made out against the respondent. Thereafter the respondent
filed a miscellaneous petition for clarification of the order dated 31st May,
2000. By its order dated 13. 7.2000 the High Court reversed its earlier order
and quashed criminal proceedings for want of proper sanction. Against the
order dated 13. 7.2000 State of Kerala preferred appeal before this Court. / G

Allowing the appeal and setting aside the impugned order, the Court
-~
HELD: I. The High Court committed grave error in passing the
impugned order. Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
prohibits the court after it has signed its judgment or final order disposing H
203
204 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] 3 S.C.R.

A a case from altering or reviewing the said judgment or order except to
correct a clerical or arithmetical error. This prohibition is complete and no '.:>..
-..
criminal court can review its own judgment or order after it is signed. By
the first order dated 31.05.2000 the High Court rejected the prayer of tbe I

respondent for quashing the crimina~ proceeding. This order attained finality.
By the impugned order, the High Court reversed its earlier order and
B quashed the criminal proceeding for want of proper sanction. By the impugned
order the High Court has not corrected any clerical or arithmetical error.
In fact the impugned order is an order of review, as the earlier order was
reversed, which could not have been done as there is no such provision under r
the Code of Criminal Procedure, but there is an interdict against it.
c [205-H; 206-A-C]

Hari Singh Mann v. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa & Ors., [20011 1 sec
:"
169, referred to.

2. The language of Section 122 of the Kerala Panchayat Act, 1994 is
clear and unambiguous. Sanction to prosecute the President, Executive
D Authority or members of a Panchayat is necessary for prosecution of any
offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to
act in the discharge of his official duty. If a person ceases to hold the above >-
office on retirement or otherwise no sanction for prosecution is necessary.
The petitioner who retired from the service could not claim protection under
E this section as he ceased to hold the post under the Panchayat. [206-G-H)
State of Kera/a V: V. Pedmeanabhan, (1999) 5 SCC 690 and R.
Balakrishna Pillai v. State of Kera/a & Anr., (1996) 1 SCC 478, referred
-'
to.
~
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. ~-

F 549 of 2001.
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.7.2000 of the Kerala High Court
in Crl.M.P. No. 3062 of2000. /
G. Prakash for. the Appellant.
G
E.M.S. Anam for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

PHUKAN, J. Leave is granted.

H The respondent has been booked for trial along with another accused
STATE OF KERALA v. M.M. MANIKANTAN NAIR [PHUKAN, J.] 205

for offences punishable under Section 120B, 409, 468, 471and477 ofIPC and A
,_I Section 13(l)(c) read with Sectibn 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988. The allegation against the respondent No. l was that while he was
working as the Secretary of Melukavu Grama Panchayat along with another
accused, who was the Head Clerk of the Panchayat, committed criminal
conspiracy io misappropriate the funds of the Panchayat which was earmarked
for construction of waiting sheds, Tribal training centres etc. and B
misappropriated large amount by creating bogus receipts and bills and thereby
committed the above offences. Initially the respondent was placed under
""'\
suspension and subsequently was allowed to retire from service on attaining
I
superannuation.

The respondent filed a revision petition m:ider Section 482 of the Criminal
c
Procedure Code before the High Court of Kerala for quashing the said criminal
proceeding on the ground that there was no sanction to prosecute him as
required under Section 122 of the Kerala Panchayat Act. That petition viz.
Crl.M. C. No. 1137 of 2000 was dismissed by the learned single Judge of the
High Court by judgment dated 3 lst May, 2000 on the grounds that there was D
proper sanction to prosecute the respondent and a prima facie case was
-', made out against him. Subsequently, a miscellaneous petition was filed in the
·..../
above criminal case by the respondent for clarification of the above order.
This petition was finally allowed by the impugned order dated 13.07.2000 by
the same learned Judge holding that there was no proper sanction from the
E
competent authority and, therefore, no cognizance could have been taken
against him. Being aggrieved, the State has approached this court.

The first question which needs our consideration is whether the
impugned order dated 13.07.2000 passed by the learned single Judge clarifying
the earlier order dated 31.05.2000 holding that no cognizance against the F
respondent could have been taken for want of proper sanction is valid or not.

The first order dated 31.05.2000 is a composite order by which the
petition under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code was dismissed on the
grounds as stated above. By way of clarification, this order was reversed by
the impugned order and the criminal proceeding was quashed for want of G
proper sanction.

The Code of Criminal Procedure does not authorise the High Court to
~ review its judgment or order passed either in exercise of its appellate, revisional
or original jurisdiction. Section 362 of the Code prohibits the court after it has
signed its judgment or final order disposing a case from altering or reviewing H
206 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] 3 S.C.R.

A the said judgment or order except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error. This
prohibition is complete and no criminal court can review its own judgment or
order after it is signed. By the first order dated 31.05.2000, the High Court
rejected the prayer of the respondent for quashing the criminal proceeding.
This order attained its finality. By the impugned order, the High Court reversed
B its earlier order and quashed the criminal proceeding for want of proper
sanction. By no stretch of imagination it can be said that by the impugned
order the High Court only corrected any clerical or arithmetical error. In fact
the impugned order is an order of review, as the earlier order was reversed,
which could not have been done as there is no such provision under the
Code of Criminal Procedure, but there is an interdict against it.
c This court in Hari Singh Mann v: Harbhajan Singh Bajwa & Ors.,
[2001] 1 SCC 169 held that Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code
· mandates that no court, when it has signed its judgment or final order
disposing of a case shall alter or review the same except to correct a clerical
or an arithmetical error and that this section is based on an acknowledged ·
D principle of law that once a matter is finally disposed of by a court, the said
court in the absence of a specific statutory provision becomes functus officio
and disentitled to entertain a fresh prayer for the same relief unless tl1e former
order of final disposal is set aside by the court of competent jurisdiction.

The next question that we have to answer is whether sanction to
E prosecute under sub-section (1) of Section 122 of the Kerala Panchayat Act
is necessary in the present case. We extract below the said sub-section:

"Sanction for Prosecution of President, Executive Authority or members
of a Panchayat (i) When the President, Executive Authority or any
member is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by
F him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official
duty, no Court shall take cognizance of such offence except with. the
previous sanction of this Government."

The language of Section 122 is clear and unambiguous. Sanction to
G prosecute the President, Executive Authority or members of a Panchayat is
necessary for prosecution of any offence alleged to have been committed by
him while acting or.purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty. If
a person ceases to hold the above office on retirement or otherwise no
sanction for prosecution is necessary. The petitioner who retired from the ').-
service could not claim protection under this section as he ceased to hold the , .
H post under the Panchayat
STATE OF KERALA v. M.M. MANIKANTAN NAIR [PHUKAN, J.] 207

Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, inter a/ia, provides for A
previous sanction for prosecution and such sanction is necessary if a person
is employed in connection with the affairs of the Union/State. This section
came up for consideration by this court and in State of Kera/a v. V.
Padmanabhan, [1999] 5 SCC 690 this court held that a person who ceased
to be a public servant on the date when the court took cognizance, no B
sanction under the above section is required. It is not necessary to refer to
other decisions of this court.

The Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code is the corresponding
provision for previous sanction of a public servant for prosecution of offences
in a criminal trial. The language used in this section is 'when any person is C
or was a public servant'. This provision was considered by this court in R.
Balakrishna Pillai v. State of Kera/a & Am:, [1996] I SCC 478 and after
referring to the report of the Law Commission which suggests an amendment
to above section and accordingly it was amended in 1991, the bench observed
as follows:
D
"It is in pursuance of this observation that the expression 'was' came
to be employed after the expression 'is' to make the sanction applicable
. ...( even in cases where a retired public servant is sought to be
prosecuted."

We are, therefore, of the opinion that in view of clear language of sub- E
section (1) of Section 122 of the Kerala Panchayat Act, sanction is required
under the said sub-section only if a person holds the office of President,
Executive Authority or any member and not otherwise. As the respondent
retired from service no previous sanction for prosecution under this section
is required.
F
In the result we hold that the High Court committed grave err.or in
passing the impugned order and accordingly appeal allowed by setting aside
the said order.

T.N.A. Appeal allowed.