Bombay High Court
Latish S/O. Krishnarao Deshmukh vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. Police ... on 7 July, 2017
Bench: V.M. Deshpande
1 crwp408.17.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.408/2017
Latish s/o Krishnarao Deshmukh,
aged about 59 years, Occ. Retired,
r/o Moropant Joshi Colony,
Behind IMA hall, Camp, Amravati,
Dist. Amravati. .....PETITIONER
...V E R S U S...
1. State of Maharashtra through its
Police Station Officer, Police Station
Wardha City, Dist. Wardha.
2. Police Inspector, Anti Corruption
Bureau, nagpur, Dist. Nagpur. ...RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. S. S. Dhengale, Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. N. B. Jawade, A.P.P. for respondents.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:- V. M. DESHPANDE, J.
DATED :- 07.07.2017
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule. Rule is returnable forthwith. Heard finally by
consent of the parties.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my
attention to the impugned order passed by the learned Additional
2 crwp408.17.odt
Sessions Judge, Wardha dated 15.02.2017 below Exh.-2 in Special
(ACB) Case No.7/2016 by which the learned Court below refused
to accept the report of the Investigating Officer under Section 169
of Cr. P. C. by stating that during the course of investigation, no
evidence was found against the present petitioner.
3. The perusal of the impugned order shows that it
weighed in the mind of the Court below that since the present
petitioner stood retired from service on attaining the age of
superannuation, bar of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption
Act will not be applicable.
Mr. Dhengale, the leaned counsel for the petitioner
further invited my attention to the judgment of the Division Bench
of this Court in Criminal Application No.716/2016 dated
10.03.2017. He further submitted, after reading paragraph nos.
12 and 13 of the said judgment that the present case is squarely
covered by the dictum laid down by this Court in the aforesaid
criminal application, which was based on two pronouncements of
the Hon'ble Apex Court discussed in the said Division Bench
judgment.
3 crwp408.17.odt
4. It is not at all in dispute that the petitioner stood
retired on attaining the age of superannuation. However that by
itself is not sufficient that bar of Section 19 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act will not be attracted in view of the law laid down
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the said Division Bench judgment.
5. It is not at all in dispute that the applicant has retired
on attaining the age of superannuation. However, in view of the
law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the State of Orissa
and others vs. Ganesh Chandra Jew; AIR 2004 SC 2179 and
also reiteration of law laid down in the said case by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the subsequent case of State of Punjab vs. Labh
Singh; 2015 (3) SCC (Cri) 601 that still bar under Section 19 of
the Prevention of Corruption Act will be applicable.
6. On the touchstone of the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Apex Court and also the law pronounced by the Division Bench of
this Court, I am of the view that the learned Additional Sessions
Judge has committed mistake at law while not accepting
application under Section 169 Cr.P.C. for discharge filed on behalf
of the prosecution only on the ground since the petitioner stood
4 crwp408.17.odt
retired therefore there is no bar of Section 19 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act.
In that view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed.
Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (i) of the petition.
No order as to costs.
JUDGE
kahale
