Bombay High Court
State Of Maharashtra vs Rahul Manohar Pande And Ors on 11 December, 2018
Bench: P.R. Bora
{1} 901 CR.REVN.APPLN.57 OF 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
901 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.57 OF 2012
State of Maharashtra
Through Central Bureau of
Investigation, S.T.F., Mumbai ..Applicant/
Complainant
VERSUS
1. Rahul Manohar Pande
Age: 34 years, Occu.: NIL,
R/o. Parimal Nagar, Nanded.
2. Sanjay @ Bhaurao Vithalrao
Chaudhary
Age: 34 years, Occu.: -,
R/o. Gandhi Nagar, Nanded.
3. Ramdas Ananda Mulge
Age: 30 years, Occu.: -,
R/o. Ganesh Nagar, Nanded.
4. Dr.Umesh Dinkarrao Deshpande
Age: 44 years, Occu.: Doctor,
R/o. Ganesh Nagar, Nanded.
5. Maroti Keshav Wagh
Age: 33 years, Occu.: -,
R/o. Bajarang Colony, Nanded.
6. Yogesh Ravindra Deshpande
Age: 32 years, Occu.: -,
R/o. Vaman Nagar, Nanded.
7. Gururaj Jairam Tuptewar
Age: 33 years, Occu.: Agri.,
R/o. Brahman Galli Mudhed,
District - Nanded.
8. Milind Arvind Ektate
Age: 52 years, Occu.: Advocate,
R/o. Vidhyanagar, Nanded.
::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/12/2018 05:31:46 :::
{2} 901 CR.REVN.APPLN.57 OF 2012
9. Mangesh Ramesh Pande
Age: 42 years, Occu.: -,
R/o. Ganesh Mandir, Nanded.
10. Rakesh Dattatraya Dhawade
Age: 49 years, Occu.: -,
R/o. Manini Apartment,
Dayari Village, Last Bus Stop,
Pune. ..Respondents
(Ori. Accused)
...
ASG for Applicant - State : Shri S.B.Deshpande
APP for Applicant - State : Shri A.S.Shinde
Advocate for Respondent No.4 : Shri M.V.Deshpande &
Shri Kamaljeet Chandilaya
Advocate for Respondent No.5 : Shri B.B.Kulkarni
Advocate for Respondent No.8 : Shri B.N.Gadegaonkar &
Shri M.V. Ghatge
Advocate for Respondent No.10 : Shri D.R.Kale
...
CORAM : P.R.BORA, J.
DATE: 11th December, 2018
ORAL JUDGMENT:-
1. Present revision application is heard finally with the
consent of the learned ASG for the revision applicant and learned
Counsel appearing for the respective respondents.
2. The Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to
as 'the CBI') has challenged the order passed by the Assistant
Sessions Judge, Nanded on 01.02.2012 below application
Exh.184 in Sessions Case No.14 of 2007. The aforesaid
application was filed by the CBI with a prayer to alter the charge
{3} 901 CR.REVN.APPLN.57 OF 2012
framed against accused Nos.2, 3, 4 and 7 and to frame the
charge against the said accused also for the offences punishable
under Sections 3 and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, under
Section 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 18
and 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
3. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge after hearing the
learned prosecutor and learned Counsel appearing for the
parties, rejected the application vide the impugned order.
Aggrieved thereby, the CBI has preferred the present revision
application.
4. Shri S.B.Deshpande, learned ASG submitted that sufficient
evidence was collected and placed on record by the CBI on the
basis of which the charge was also liable to be framed against
accused Nos.2, 3, 4 and 7 for the offences punishable under
Sections 3 and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, under Section
120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 18 and 23 of
the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. The learned ASG has
submitted that the learned Assistant Sessions Judge failed in
properly appreciating the material on record and as such did not
frame the charge against the said accused for the aforesaid
offences. The learned ASG attempted to bring to my notice the
{4} 901 CR.REVN.APPLN.57 OF 2012
material as has been existing on record against the aforesaid
accused, which according to the CBI is sufficient for framing the
charge against the said accused for the aforesaid offences.
However, when I went through the record of the case, it is
revealed that the present application is filed in the year 2012
and since then the trial of the aforesaid Sessions case is stayed
by this Court.
5. After having considered the aforesaid aspect in light of the
Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Asian
Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Limited and Another Vs. Central
Bureau of Investigation [2018 (2) Bom.C.R.(Cri.) 770] and more
particularly, after having gone through the order, which is
impugned in the present revision application, it appears to me
that without going into the merits of the case and the objections
as are raised in the present application and keeping all said
objections on facts and law, open to be agitated by the parties
before the Sessions/Special Court, the present revision
application can be disposed of.
6. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents also
attempted to make submission in support of the order passed by
the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, stating that the learned
Assistant Sessions Judge has rightly rejected the application and
{5} 901 CR.REVN.APPLN.57 OF 2012
decided not to frame the proposed charge against the concerned
accused. However, as I mentioned herein above, I am not
intending to hear the arguments of the respondents also in
detail.
7. It has to be stated that in the impugned order it has been
amply made clear by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge that if
the prosecution succeeds in bringing any cogent and reliable
evidence on record against the accused persons during the
course of the trial, then the charge can be altered. It appears
that at that stage, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge was not
convinced that the material on record was sufficient to frame the
charge as was sought to be framed by the CBI against the said
accused. It appears to me that as has been observed by the
learned Assistant Sessions Judge, if the CBI succeeds in bringing
on record any cogent and reliable material on record during the
course of trial, it would be open for it to make a request to alter
the charge or to frame additional charge for the offences, which
may reveal from the said material. Since that option is kept open
by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, it appears to me that
instead of deciding the revision application after long lapse of
six years and without going into the merits of the case, it would
be expedient if the Sessions Court is directed to proceed with the
{6} 901 CR.REVN.APPLN.57 OF 2012
trial expeditiously. I reiterate that if the CBI succeeds in bringing
on record any cogent and sufficient evidence revealing the
offences against accused Nos.2, 3, 4 and 7, it may be open for it
to make a request to frame charge against the concerned
accused for the aforesaid offences and the said request shall be
considered by the Sessions Court on its own merits. The
Sessions Court, Nanded shall hear and decide Sessions Case
No.14 of 2007 as expeditiously as possible.
8. With the aforesaid observations, present revision
application stands disposed of.
9. Rule is discharged.
(P.R.BORA)
JUDGE
SPT
