Bombay High Court
Sopan Ramrao Suryawanshi vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. ... on 10 August, 2022
Bench: V. G. Joshi
Judgment apl298.22
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY :
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION [APL] No. 298/2022.
Sopan Ramrao Suryavanshi,
Aged about 70 years, Occupation -
Retired, Resident of 21, Manas
Sahakar Nagar, New Osmanpura,
Aurangabad 431005. ... APPLICANT.
VERSUS
State of Maharashtra,
through Superintendent of Police,
Anti Corruption Bureau, Nagpur. ... NON-APPLICANT.
-------------------------
Mr. S.D. Dewani, Advocate for the Applicant.
Mr.S.M. Ukey, Addl.P.P. for the Non-applicant.
--------------------------
CORAM : VINAY JOSHI, J.
DATE : AUGUST 10, 2022.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
Heard learned counsel for the parties. By their consent
Rgd.
Judgment apl298.22
Criminal Application is taken up for final disposal at the stage of
admission.
Admit.
2. Rejection of discharge application by the Special Judge
vide order dated 30.04.2021, caused the applicant to invoke the
inherent powers of this Court. The applicant namely Sopan
Suryavanshi has been arrayed as an accused in Session Trial
No.25/2018 for the offence punishable under Sections 13[1][c],
13[1][d] read with Section 13[2] of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988.
3. The applicant has applied for discharge stating that the
material in the charge sheet, even if taken as it stand, the
commission of offence under the Act cannot be construed. It is
submitted that even a case of strong suspicion has not been made
out. Primely it is argued that the applicant has faced departmental
enquiry on same charges, however, he has been exonerated and
thus, as per law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of
Ashoo Surendranath Tewari .vrs. Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Rgd.
Judgment apl298.22
EOW, CBI and another (2020) 9 SCC 636, criminal prosecution
would not lie. The prosecution has opposed the application for
discharge in trial Court on which it was rejected and therefore, this
application.
4. The learned counsel for the applicant initially submitted
that the case of applicant is squarely covered by two successive
orders of this Court wherein the co-accused facing similar charges
with same material have been discharged. He has placed reliance on
the decisions of this Court in cases of (1) Dilip Deorao Pohekar .vrs.
The State of Maharashtra and another - Criminal Revision
Application No.92/2021 decided on 10.12.2021 and (2) Devendra
Parshuram Shirke .vrs. The State of Maharashtra - Criminal Revision
Application No.129/2021 decided on 23.12.2021.
5. It is argued that similar allegations are leveled against the
applicant, however, this Court took a view that as per law laid down
by the Supreme Court in case of Ashoo Tewari (supra), the criminal
prosecution would not lie. In said case, the Supreme Court has made
Rgd.
Judgment apl298.22
an exposition of law that, if the accused has been exonerated in the
departmental enquiry on merits, criminal prosecution on the same
set of facts cannot be allowed to continue.
6. The learned Addl.P.P. has not disputed the factual aspect
that the applicant is facing similar charges, as well as he has been
exonerated in the departmental enquiry for relevant charges. He
has also not disputed that the case of the applicant falls on same
footing as that of the co-accused, who have been discharged by this
Court in above referred two criminal revision applications.
7. Besides that, I have considered the relevant facts pressed
against the applicant. The applicant was posted as Chief Engineer of
Gosikhurd Project during September 2005 til June 2009, and he
retired by way of superannuation in the year 2009. The concerned
crime bearing Crime No.70/2018 was registered after 10 years i.e. in
the year 2018 by the Anti Corruption Bureau, Nagpur. It is alleged
by the prosecution that the applicant has illegally updated the
original tender cost, which is beyond the powers of the Committee.
Rgd.
Judgment apl298.22
The main allegations is about recommendations for updation of
valuation of work. The role attributed to the accused in the initial
report is that he has committed misconduct by recommending
updation of value of the work. Undisputedly, the applicant faced the
departmental enquiry, however, in appeal he has been exonerated
from the said charges. In the above referred decision in case of
Ashoo Tewari (supra), the Supreme Court has emphasized that the
standard of proof in the departmental enquiry proceedings is of
preponderance of probabilities, whilst the standard of proof in
criminal proceeding is a proof beyond reasonable doubt. On that
basis, it has been held that in case of exoneration of the accused in
the departmental enquiry, criminal prosecution would not continue.
8. It is a settled law that at the stage of framing charges,
though meticulous marshaling of material is not required, however,
it is permissible for the Court to sift the material with a view to
ascertain whether there is a case for proceeding with the trial. In
case of suspicion, it must be founded on some material which can be
translated into evidence. On careful scrutiny of the material on the
Rgd.
Judgment apl298.22
basis of settled legal position, the conclusion is that it is insufficient
to presume commission of offence, inasmuch as it was not disputed
by the State that other two co-accused have been discharged by this
Court on same footing, and thus, the applicant has made out a case
for discharge.
9. In that view of the matter, the impugned order passed by
the Special Judge, (ACB) Nagpur in Special Case No.25/2018 dated
30.04.2021 is quashed and set aside. The applicant - Sopan Ramrao
Suryawanshi is discharged from the offence punishable under
Sections 13[1][c], 13[1][d] read with Section 13[2] of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 registered vide Crime
No.70/2018 by the Sadar Police Station, Nagpur.
10. Criminal Application is accordingly allowed and disposed
of.
JUDGE
Rgd.
Signed By:RAKESH GANESHLAL
DHURIYA
Private Secretary
High Court of Bombay, at Nagpur
Signing Date:12.08.2022 11:00
