Bombay High Court
Ramesh S/O Krushnarao Deshpande vs State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 7 April, 2016
Bench: Z.A. Haq
Judgment 1 revn154.13.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 154 OF 2013
Ramesh S/o. Krushnarao Deshpande,
Aged about 70 years, Occupation : Retired,
Resident of Amravati, Tq. Dist. Amravati.
ig .... APPLICANT.
// VERSUS //
State of Maharashtra, through
Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Anti Corruption Bureau, Buldhana.
.... NON-APPLICANT
.
______________________________________________________________
Shri S.S.Voditel, Advocate for Applicant.
Shri S.S.Doifode, A.P.P. for Non-applicant.
______________________________________________________________
CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.
DATED : APRIL 07, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.
2. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith.
Judgment 2 revn154.13.odt
3. The applicant has filed this revision application
challenging the order passed by the Special Judge rejecting the
application filed by the applicant praying that he be discharged from
the prosecution for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 466,
471, 477-A, 120-B and 109 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and for the
offence under Section 13(1)(d) punishable under Section 13(2) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
4. The relevant facts are as follows :
Special (ACB) Case No.02 of 2003 is filed against six
persons (including the applicant) for the offences punishable under
Sections 465, 466, 471, 477, 477A read with Sections 120-B and 109 of
the Indian Penal Code and for the offence under Section 13(1)(d)
punishable under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988.
According to the prosecution, the applicant who was
posted as Resident Deputy Collector, Buldana at the relevant time,
facilitated the illegal allotment of land on lease in favour of Malkapur
Education Society. The gist of the charges against the applicant is that
Judgment 3 revn154.13.odt
while forwarding the proposal for allotment of the land to the Collector,
Buldana, the applicant deliberately suppressed the relevant entries in
the revenue record to facilitate the allotment of the land on lease and
that while granting lease of the land the value of the land was wrongly
computed.
According to the applicant, F.I.R. No.3035 of 1998 was
lodged on 5th February, 1998 and the applicant was not shown as
accused. The applicant retired on 29 th February, 2000 and the charge-
sheet was filed on 31st January, 2002 against the applicant also. The
applicant contends that the charge-sheet is filed against the applicant
without seeking sanction as required by Section 19 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 and this is done as according to the prosecution,
the sanction is not required after superannuation of the applicant.
5. By the judgment delivered on 7th April, 2016 (today), I
have allowed Criminal Revision Application No.67 of 2013 filed by co-
accused Prakash Murlidhar Bhisikar who was posted as Collector,
Buldana at the relevant time. I have come to the conclusion that the
accusations and the documents placed on the record do not contain
necessary ingredients to constitute the offences punishable under
Judgment 4 revn154.13.odt
Sections 465, 466, 471, 477, 477A read with Sections 120-B and 109
of the Indian Penal Code and for the offence under Section 13(1)(d)
punishable under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988.
6. The accusations against the applicant that he has
deliberately suppressed the relevant revenue record while forwarding
the proposal regarding the allotment of the land to the Collector,
Buldana, does not make out any offence against the applicant. The
record shows that the applicant had discharged his official duty and has
acted on the basis of the report submitted by his subordinate and on
the basis of the documents which showed that the concerned land
belong to the State Government. Though it is alleged that the applicant
had deliberately suppressed the relevant entries of the revenue records
while forwarding the proposal to the Collector, Buldana, the learned
APP has not been able to show from the record that the documents
submitted by the subordinates of the applicant showed that the
concerned land belonged to the Ministry of Defence, Government of
India. Though it is alleged that the valuation of the concerned land
was deliberately shown on the lower side at Rs.9,694/- to facilitate the
allotment of the land on nominal rent of Re.1/- per year as per Rule 7
Judgment 5 revn154.13.odt
of the Maharashtra Land Revenue (Disposal of Government Lands)
Rules, 1971, the non-applicant has not been able to show the correct
and actual valuation as per the State Government. Moreover, the
charge against the applicant that because of the allotment of the land
on lease for 15 years on nominal rent @ Re.1/- per year has resulted in
huge financial loss to the State Government is fallacious and self-
contradictory considering the stand of the State Government that the
concerned land belongs to the Ministry of Defence, Government of
India. If the concerned land belongs to the Ministry of Defence,
Government of India, how it can be said that huge financial loss is
caused to the State Government.
7. The learned Special Judge has not adverted to the relevant
aspects, specially as to whether the accusations made against the
applicant make out the offence for which he is being prosecuted. The
learned Special Judge has observed that the prosecution alleges that
the applicant has acted dishonestly while taking decision, has followed
corrupt practices and has caused wrongful loss to the State Government
and these aspects cannot be considered unless the evidence is recorded.
The learned Special Judge has observed that the prosecution has
adduced sufficient oral and documentary evidence on record, which
Judgment 6 revn154.13.odt
makes out prima-facie case and therefore, the applicant cannot be
discharged. With the above general observations, the application is
rejected by the learned Special Judge. I find that the learned Special
Judge has not considered the matter in the right perspective and has
not adverted to the relevant aspects.
8.
In my view, the prosecution has failed to establish that the
ingredients necessary to prosecute the applicant for the offences
punishable under Sections 465, 466, 471, 477-A and 109 of the Indian
Penal Code and for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) punishable
under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 exist.
Therefore, the prosecution against the applicant for the above offences
cannot be continued and he has to be discharged from the prosecution.
9. Hence, the following order :
i) The order passed by the learned Special Judge in Special
(ACB) Case No. 2 of 2003 on application (Exh.71) on 25th
September, 2012 is set aside.
ii) The application (Exh.71) filed by the applicant is allowed.
iii) The applicant is discharged from the Special (ACB) Case
No. 2 of 2003 pending before the Special Judge, Buldana.
Judgment 7 revn154.13.odt
iv) Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
v) In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.
JUDGE
RRaut..
