Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra vs Totaram Bhaurao Thakare on 19 August, 2016
Bench: V.K. Jadhav
1 WP 328.2007.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.328 OF 2007
....
The State of Maharashtra. Petitioner/
Complainant
VERSUS
Totaram s/o Bhaurao Thakare,
age 48 yrs, Occ. Tahasildar,
R/o Indewadi, Tq. & Dist., Jalna Respondent/
ig accused.
...
Miss R P Gour APP for State.
...
CORAM : V.K. JADHAV, J.
Dated: August 19, 2016
...
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
1. Heard the learned APP for the Petitioner-State.
2. The Petitioner-State is challenging the order
passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-1, Jalna dated
10.4.2007 and 4.5.2007 in Special (PCA) Case
No.9/2004.
3. Brief facts, giving rise, to the present writ petition
are as under :-
Special (PCA) case No.9/2004 was posted on
2 WP 328.2007.odt
10.4.2007 for recording evidence. Summons was issued
to the Sanctioning Authority, however, the concerned
police station has not submitted the report about the
service of summons. Consequently, the prosecution has
submitted application for re-issuing summons to the
Sanctioning Authority. However, the learned Special
Judge has imposed costs of Rs.500/- to be deposited in
the Court by the prosecution by order dated 10.4.2007
and 4.5.2007 respectively. Hence, this Writ Petition.
4. The learned APP submits that, even though, said
case was part heard and posted for the evidence of the
Sanctioning Authority and even though summons was
issued to the Sanctioning Authority, the concerned
police station has not submitted report about the
service of summons. The Sanctioning Authority is
material witness of the prosecution. Thus, prosecution
was constrained to file an application for re-issuance of
the summons to the Sanctioning Authority. However,
the learned Judge though observed that, report of the
earlier summons are not received by the Court, further
without any base observed that the prosecution is not
3 WP 328.2007.odt
interested and not diligent while prosecuting the case
and thus allowed said application subject to costs of
Rs.500/-. The learned APP submits that, even on
earlier occasion by order dated 4.5.2007 matter came to
be adjourned subject to costs of Rs.500/-. The learned
APP thus submits that both the orders are thus
deserves to be quashed and set aside.
5.
It appears from the impugned order passed by the
learned Judge that report of the service of the summons
was not received by the Court and therefore,
prosecution has filed an application for re-issuance of
summons to the Sanctioning Authority. In a case under
the Provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act evidence
of Sanctioning Authority is material. Thus, the
prosecution was constrained to file an application for re-
issuance of the summons to the sanctioning authority
though service report is not received from the concerned
police station. The learned Judge has observed that no
reasons are coming for not returning earlier summons.
The sanctioning authority is a Desk Officer Revenue and
Forest Depart, Mantralaya, Mumbai. It is not possible
4 WP 328.2007.odt
for the prosecution to explain as to why earlier
summons with report were not returned by the
concerned police station. I do not find any justification
in the observations made by the learned Judge that the
prosecution is not interested and diligent in prosecuting
the case. Thus, imposition of the costs twice for the
same reason is unwarranted and uncalled for. Hence,
following order is passed.
ig O r d e r
I. Writ Petition is hereby allowed in terms of
prayer clauses "B" & "C".
II. Writ Petition is disposed off accordingly.
Rule is made absolute in above terms.
( V.K. JADHAV, J. )
...
aaa/-
