Ideya Vendan R vs The Additional Chief Secretary on 26 September, 2013
40) In Raghunath Anant Govilkar vs. State of
Maharshtra [(2008) 11 SCC 289], the Apex Court has
held thus in Paragraphs-6, 10 & 11:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 67 (2.19 seconds)Surendrabhai vs State
In
Raghunath Anant
Govilkar vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
(supra), the Supreme Court reiterated the law laid down in its
earlier decision in B. Saha vs. M.S.
Kochar.
Sri H D Kumaraswamy vs State Of Karnataka on 27 July, 2015
In AIR 2008 SC (Supp) page 1486 Raghunath Anant
Govilkar Vs. State of Maharashtra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has observed at para 30 as follows:
Chadha vs State 2013 (6) Lrc 306 (Delhi). The ... on 14 December, 2015
In Rajib Ranjan and others v. R. Vijay Kumar (supra)
after referring to the case of Amrik Singh v. State of Pepsu (supra),
Raghunath Anant Govilkar v. State of Maharashtra and others and
Shambhoo Nath Mishra v. State of U.P and others (supra), it was
held in Para No. 18, same is reproduced as under:
Cbi vs . M/S. Castron Technologies Ltd. & Ors. on 6 October, 2020
16. This principle was explained in some more detail in Raghunath
Anant Govilkar v. State of Maharashtra [(2008) 11 SCC 289 :
Cbi vs . Narayan Diwakar & Others on 19 April, 2011
16. This well settled position of law has been re-
affirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Raghunath Anant Govilkar
Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2008(1) RCR (Criminal) 1042, as
under:-
Mukul Roy vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 20 July, 2018
Mr. Dutta relying on the decision in case of Raghunath Anant Govilkar Vs. State of
Maharashtra (2009) 1 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 130, has submitted that sanction for
prosecution as required under Section 197(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in respect to
retired Government servant is applicable if the offence was relatable to official duty but the
alleged offence committed by the petitioner does not fall within the ambit of Section 197 Cr.P.C.
hence, question of sanction does not arise.
Cbi vs . Narayan Diwakar & Others on 19 April, 2011
18. This well settled position of law has been re-
affirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Raghunath Anant Govilkar
Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2008(1) RCR (Criminal) 1042, as
under:-
Brajendra Kumar Gupta vs State Of U.P. & 3 Others on 27 May, 2014
Sri V.C. Mishra, learned Advocate General on behalf of the State submits that the Court cannot look into the sufficiency of the material which was available with the State Government in the matter of refusal to grant permission for prosecution of the police officers as the Court does not sit in an appeal over the order of the State Government. Sri V.C. Mishra, has placed reliance upon the judgements of the Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra Through Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Mahesh G. Jain reported in (2013) 8 SCC 119 and Raghunath Anant Govilkar vs. State of Maharashtra & Others reported in (2008) 11 SCC 289.
1 Scc 478, State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Sheetla Sahai And Others on 21 March, 2016
In Rajib Ranjan and others v. R. Vijay Kumar (supra)
after referring to the case of Amrik Singh v. State of Pepsu (supra),
Raghunath Anant Govilkar v. State of Maharashtra and others and
Shambhoo Nath Mishra v. State of U.P and others (supra), it was
held in Para No. 18, same is reproduced as under: