Rupa Deepak Dhande vs State Of Mah. Thr. Central Bureau ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 1787 Bom

                                                 apl.91.2022 judge.odt
                                       1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                   NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

      CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.91 OF 2022

1.    Rupa Deepak Dhande,
      Aged 57 Yrs., Occ.: Service,
      R/o. Saidatta Datta Society, 5th Floor,
      D-503, Datta Nagar, Telco Colony,
      Jambhulwadi Road, (Ambegaon Khurd)
      Pune (M.S.)- 411046                            .... APPLICANT


                           // V E R S U S //

1.    State of Maharashtra,
      Through        Central    Bureau      of
      Investigation, Anti Corruption Branch,
      through Inspector of Police, CGP
      Complex, Block-C, Third Floor,
      Seminary Hills, Nagpur 440006

2.    Harshwardhan Ratnakar Nanoti,
      Aged 49 Yrs., Occ.: Service,
      Permanent Address : 202, Krishnakuti
      Residency, Tapadiya Nagar, Akola,
      At present R/o. 202, Abhinava
      Residency, Laxmi Nagar, Nagpur.

3.    Satish Dinanath Jalgaonkar,
      Aged 60 Yrs., Occ.: Lawyer,
      (Income Tax Practitioner)
      R/o. Nandura Road, Chande Colony,
      Khamgaon, Distt. Buldhana

4.    Rajendrakumar S/o. Brijkishore Jaiswal,
      Aged 59 Yrs., Occ.: Business,
      R/o. Jatharpeth, Akola,
      Taluka and District Akola
                                                                       apl.91.2022 judge.odt
                                                    2



5.        Dr. Sadanand Madhukar Ingle,
          Aged Major, Occ.: Doctor,
          R/o. Jalamb Naka, Khamgaon,
          District Buldhana.                                     ... NON-APPLICANTS

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Shri. R. P. Joshi, Advocate for the applicant
           Ms Mugdha Chandurkar, Advocate for non-applicant No.1
           Shri D. D. Vaidya, Advocate for non-applicant No. 2
           Shri A. D. Bhate, Advocate for non-applicant No.3
           Shri A. S. Mardikar, Sr. Adv. With Shri A.R. Deshpande, Advocate for non-
           applicant No. 4
           Shri Z. Z. Haq, Advocate for non-applicant No. 5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

               CORAM : G. A. SANAP, J.
               JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 16/02/2023
               JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 22/02/2023


JUDGMENT :

1. Heard.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally

with the consent of learned Advocates for the parties.

3. In this application, made under Section 482 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, the challenge is to the order dated

06.01.2022, passed by the learned Special Judge, Khamgaon,

District Buldhana, whereby the learned Judge allowed the apl.91.2022 judge.odt

application at Exh. 108 made by the accused No.2 to add this

applicant-Mrs Rupa Dhande and one Shri Satish Dinanath

Jalgaonkar as an accused in Special Case ACB No. 04 of 2014 by

invoking the provisions of Section 319 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Cr.P.C.").

4. The facts relevant for deciding this application may

be stated as follows:

Non-applicant No.2 - Harshwardhan Nanoti is the

accused No.1 (hereinafter referred as 'accused No.1') and the non-

applicant No. 4 - Rajendrakumar Jaiswal is the accused No.2

(hereinafter referred as 'accused No.-2') in the Special case ACB No.

04 of 2014. They are being charged and prosecuted for commission

of an offence under Sections 7, 8, 15 read with Section 13 (1)(d) of

the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 120-B of the

Indian Penal Code. The FIR was registered on the basis of the

report lodged by the informant- Dr. Sadanand Madhukar Ingle,

who is the non-applicant No.5, with the Central Bureau of

Investigation. Informant is a Doctor by profession and resident of apl.91.2022 judge.odt

Khamgaon. On 10.09.2013, at about 12:00 p.m. a team of Income

Tax Officers, Income Tax Office, Khamgaon and Akola consisting

of Shri Mistri, Joint Commissioner, Shri Nanoti, ITO, Khamgaon,

Mrs Rupa Dhande, ITO, Akola, Smt. Jog, ITO, Akola, Shri

Khandagale, Income Tax Inspector, Khamgaon, Shri Pankaj Kumar

Inspector, Income Tax, Akola and Shri Sadiq had conducted survey

of the hospital and residence of the informant at Khamgaon. At the

time of survey the officers of the raiding team found the cash of Rs.8

lacs in his residence. The officers returned the said amount of Rs.8

lacs to the informant. However, the officers unauthorizedly carried

the records related to his hospital and property documents without

preparing panchanama.

5. The informant stated before income tax officer Shri

Nanoti that he has been regularly paying the admissible tax. He

showed him the available record. It is stated that accused No.1-

Shri Nanoti told the informant that the documents found from his

residence revealed that the amount of Rs.8-9 crores was

unaccounted money and on the said money he is liable to pay apl.91.2022 judge.odt

income tax of Rs.3 crores. The informant pleaded before accused

No.1- Shri Nanoti for help. It is the case of the informant that the

accused No.1 told him that on disclosed income he was required to

pay a tax of Rs.3 crores. The accused No.1 proposed to settle the

matter by paying him Rs.1 crore. It is stated that in order to do this

favour accused No.1-Shri Nanoti demanded amount of Rs.75 lacs,

as illegal gratification, for himself and other officers of income tax

office namely Shri Mistri, Joint Commissioner, Shri Nanoti, ITO,

Khamgaon, Mrs Rupa Dhande, ITO, Akola, Smt. Jog, ITO, Akola,

Shri Khandagale, Income Tax Inspector, Khamgaon, Shri Pankaj

Kumar Inspector, Income Tax, Akola and Shri Sadiq. Accused

No.1 threatened the informant that if he is not agreeable to this

settlement then his office, hospital and property would be seized

and he would be required to face the criminal prosecution. At that

time, he did not answer accused No.1- Shri Nanoti.

6. It is further stated that on receipt of summons from

income tax office, Khamgaon he went there on 12.09.2013 at about

11:30 a.m. and at that time the accused No.1 demanded illegal apl.91.2022 judge.odt

gratification of Rs.75 lacs for himself and above named officers. The

informant did not want to pay the amount. Therefore, he

approached the Superintendent of Police, CBI/ACB, Nagpur. On

the basis of his report, the FIR came to be registered. The

telephonic conversation between the accused No.1 and the

informant was recorded on two occasions. The telephonic

conversation between the accused No.2 and the informant was

recorded on three occasions. The telephonic conversation with the

applicant, the proposed accused - Rupa Dhande, was recorded once.

The informant as per the demand of accused No.1 had agreed to

pay the amount. As directed by accused No.2, he went to Akola to

pay the first installment of Rs.20 lacs to accused No.2. However,

the accused No.2 got the clue and therefore, the raid could not be

fructified. The investigating officer conducted the investigation and

found the complicity of accused Nos. 1 and 2 in the commission of

the crime. The charge-sheet was, therefore, filed against the accused

Nos. 1 and 2.

7. Learned Special Judge framed the charge against the apl.91.2022 judge.odt

accused Nos. 1 and 2. The prosecution evidence commenced with

the examination of the informant- Dr. Ingle as PW-1. He was cross

examined on behalf of the accused Nos. 1 and 2. At the end of his

cross examination, on 03.08.2021, the accused No.2 made the

application at Exh. 108 under Section 319 for adding the applicant-

Rupa Dhande and Shri Jalgaonkar, as an accused in the case.

Learned special Judge initially decided the said application and

rejected it on 06.08.2021. The accused No.2 challenged the said

order before this Court. This Court vide order dated 16.12.2021 in

Criminal Application (APL) No. 927 of 2021 set aside the said

order and remitted the matter back to the Special Judge for deciding

the application at Exh. 108 afresh for the reasons recorded in the

order. Thereafter, the learned Special Judge granted the

opportunity of hearing to the parties and decided the said

application afresh on 06.01.2021. Learned Special Judge for the

reasons recorded in his order dated 06.01.2022 allowed the

application and directed that Mrs Rupa Dhande and Satish

Jalgaonkar be added as accused in the Special Case ACB No. 04 of

2014, by invoking the provisions of Section 319 of the Code of apl.91.2022 judge.odt

Criminal Procedure. Against this order, the applicant has come

before this Court.

8. I have heard the learned Advocate Shri. R. P. Joshi

for the applicant and senior Advocate Shri Anil Mardikar for the

accused No.2. I have also heard Smt. Mugdha Chandukar for the

non-applicant No.1 CBI. Perused the record and proceedings.

9. At the outset it is necessary to note that Satish

Jalgaonkar had filed a separate application challenging this order.

During the pendency of the said application Satish Jalgaonkar died.

His application has, therefore, been disposed of as having rendered

infructuous.

10. Learned Advocate Shri Joshi for the applicant

submitted that the learned Special Judge has committed a patent

illegality. Learned Advocate submitted that there is no iota of

evidence to form a prima facie opinion about involvement of the

applicant - Rupa Dhande in this case. Learned Advocate took me

through the record and particularly the transcript of the recorded apl.91.2022 judge.odt

conversation and the facts recorded in the FIR. Learned Advocate

submitted that if the transcript of the recording is looked at from

any angle and accepted as it is, the same is not sufficient even to

presume that the applicant - Rupa Dhande has either made demand

of any illegal gratification or abated the demand of illegal

gratification by accused No.1. The learned Advocate submitted that

the informant has not attributed any role to Rupa Dhande in the

matter of demand of illegal gratification. Learned Advocate

submitted that the transcript of the recorded conversation would

show that the topic of demand made by the accused No.1 was

initiated by the informant and that the applicant -Rupa Dhande was

reluctant to talk to him on that subject. Learned Advocate

submitted that in the report the names of other officers, for whom

the demand of illegal gratification was made by accused No.1, have

been mentioned. It is pointed out that in the report, the informant

has stated that the accused No.1 demanded the gratification of

Rs.75 lacs for himself and for other 6-7 officers including Rupa

Dhande. Learned Advocate submitted that in the substantive

evidence adduced before Court by the informant as PW-1, he has apl.91.2022 judge.odt

not attributed any role to Rupa Dhande in the matter of demand of

illegal gratification. Learned Advocate took me through his

evidence and submitted that the evidence indicates that it was a

general talk between informant and applicant -Rupa Dhande,

wherein the informant had expressed his anxiety and concern with

her. Learned Advocate relied upon decision in the case of Hardeep

Singh .v/s. State of Punjab and ors.1 and submitted that if the

material sought to be relied upon against the applicant -Rupa

Dhande to add her as an accused is considered on the touch stone of

the law laid down in the case of Hardeep Singh (supra), it would

show that it is not at all sufficient to prima facie establish her

involvement and complicity in this crime in any manner. Learned

Advocate more particularly relied upon para 106 of the decision in

the case of Hardeep Singh (supra). Para 106 reads as follows:

"106. Thus, we hold that though only a prima facie case is to be established from the evidence led before the court, not necessarily tested on the anvil of Cross-Examination, it requires much stronger evidence than mere probability of his complicity. The test that has to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if

1 (2014) 3 SCC 92 apl.91.2022 judge.odt

goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction. In the absence of such satisfaction, the court should refrain from exercising power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. In Section 319 Cr.P.C. the purpose of providing if "it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence" is clear from the words "for which such person could be tried together with the accused." The words used are not "for which such person could be convicted." There is, therefore, no scope for the Court acting under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to form any opinion as to the guilt of the accused."

11. Learned Advocate Smt Mugdha Chandurkar for

non-applicant No.1 submitted that the thorough investigation

conducted in crime revealed the involvement of the accused Nos. 1

and 2 only. Learned Advocate supported the contention of the

applicant - Rupa Dhande. Learned Advocate submitted that the

material on record is not at all sufficient to add applicant- Rupa

Dhande as an accused. Learned Advocate further submitted that

Rupa Dhande is their star witness.

12. Learned Senior Advocate Shri Mardikar for the non-

applicant No.2 submitted that Exh. 137, the transcript of the

recorded conversation, is the best evidence against applicant- Rupa

Dhande. Learned senior Advocate submitted that in the report the

informant has stated the name of applicant -Rupa Dhande, being apl.91.2022 judge.odt

one of the officers, for whom the demand of Rs.75 lacs was made by

the accused No.1. Learned senior Advocate took me through the

evidence of PW-1 and pointed out the substantive evidence to seek

support to his submission. Learned senior Advocate submitted that

in his evidence PW-1 has specifically stated about role of the

applicant -Rupa Dhande. Learned senior Advocate took me

through the cross examination of PW-1 conducted on behalf of the

accused No.2 to substantiate his submission that the answers given

by PW-1 in his cross examination with regard to the role of the

applicant -Rupa Dhande are sufficient to invoke the provisions of

Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. and to add her as an accused. Learned

senior Advocate further took me through the evidence of PW-2,

who is panch witness to the pre-trap panchanama, wherein he has

made reference to the telephonic conversation between PW-1 and

the applicant -Rupa Dhande. Learned senior Advocate submitted

that the evidence on record is sufficient to proceed against the

applicant -Rupa Dhande by invoking the provisions of Section 319

of the Cr.P.C. Learned senior Advocate submitted that on the basis

of the evidence on record the applicant can be prosecuted for the apl.91.2022 judge.odt

offence of abatement of demand of illegal gratification by the

accused No.1. Learned senior Advocate in order to substantiate his

submission relied upon decisions in following three cases-

1. Sartaj Singh .v/s. State of Haryana and Anr.2,

2. Hardeep Singh .v/s. State of Punjab and Ors.3,

3. Manjeet Singh .v/s. State of Haryana and Ors.4.

13. The decision in the case of Hardeep Singh (supra)

has been considered and followed in Sartaj Singh (supra) and Manjit

Singh (supra) . Learned senior Advocate more particularly relied

upon para No. 117 of the judgment in Hardeep Singh's case. The

relevant portion reads thus:

"117. We accordingly sum up our conclusions as

follows:

Questions (i) & (iii)

-What is the stage at which power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. can be exercised?

AND

-Whether the word "evidence" used in Section 319(1) Cr.P.C.

has been used in a comprehensive sense and includes the

2 (2021)5 SCC 337 3 (2014) 3 SCC 92 4 (2021) SCC OnLine 632 apl.91.2022 judge.odt

evidence collected during investigation or the word "evidence" is limited to the evidence recorded during trial?

Answer

117.1. In Dharam Pal case, the Constitution Bench has already held that after committal, cognizance of an offence can be taken against a person not named as an accused but against whom materials are available from the papers filed by the police after completion of investigation. Such cognizance can be taken under Section 193 Cr.P.C. and the Sessions Judge need not wait till "evidence" under Section 319 Cr.P.C. becomes available for summoning an additional accused.

117.2. Section 319 Cr.P.C., significantly, uses two expressions that have to be taken note of i.e. (1) Inquiry (2) Trial. As a trial commences after framing of charge, an inquiry can only be understood to be a pre-trial inquiry. Inquiries under Sections 200, 201, 202 Cr.P.C., and under Section 398 Cr.P.C. are species of the inquiry contemplated by Section 319 Cr.P.C. Materials coming before the Court in course of such inquiries can be used for corroboration of the evidence recorded in the court after the trial commences, for the exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C., and also to add an accused whose name has been shown in Column 2 of the chargesheet.

117.3. In view of the above position the word "evidence" in Section 319 Cr.P.C. has to be broadly understood and not literally i.e. as evidence brought during a trial."

14. As far as the case on hand is concerned, the

evidence of two witnesses has been recorded by the learned Special

Judge. The transcript of the recorded conversation between

informant and applicant - Rupa Dhande has been exhibited.

apl.91.2022 judge.odt

The decision in the case of Hardeep Singh (supra) has been

followed in the case of Sartaj Singh (supra) and Manjit Singh

(supra). In this case, the moot question of fact that needs to be

addressed is whether the evidence brought on record and relied

upon, to add the applicant -Rupa Dhande as an accused in this case,

is sufficient or not to make her to face the trial for so called offence

of abatement.

15. In this case, the main evidence relied upon to add

the applicant as an accused is her recorded conversation with the

informant. The transcript of the recorded conversation is, therefore,

the best document to discern the role of the applicant- Rupa

Dhande. The evidence adduced before the Court by PW-1 & PW-2

is required to be considered in juxtaposition with the actual

conversation between the informant and the applicant- Rupa

Dhande. It would be necessary to consider the transcript of

recorded conversation between informant and the applicant -Rupa

Dhande. It is to be noted that the first conversation recorded

between the informant and accused No.1 is dated 12.09.2013 at apl.91.2022 judge.odt

2:20 p.m. The second conversation recorded between informant

and the accused No.1 is dated 16.09.2013. The transcript of the

first conversation is at Exh. 136 and the second conversation is at

Exh. 105. Perusal of these two transcripted conversation would

show that there is no mention of name of Rupa Dhande. As far as

the other contents of two transcripted conversation are concerned it

is not necessary to go into it. Transcripted conversation between

Rupa Dhande and the informant is at Exh. 137. The first call was

made by Rupa Dhande to the informant. Perusal of this transcript of

the recorded conversation would show that she had made a phone

call to the informant to make inquiry about the address of Dr.

Sarnaik at Nagpur, who was not concerned with this matter at all.

The informant told her that he was residing at Ramdaspeth, but

within 5-10 minutes he would call her back and would give his

detail address. So after this topic, the informant started the next

topic about accused No.1-Shri. Nanoti with Rupa Dhande. In his

further talk with Rupa Dhande he requested Rupa Dhande to talk

to Mr. Nanoti and help him. She assured him that she will talk to

accused No.1- Shri Nanoti and there would be no problem. After apl.91.2022 judge.odt

this, the call was disconnected. The second call was made by the

informant to Rupa Dhande. Perusal of this conversation would

show that the informant talked to her about his problems and the

trouble he has been facing because of this raid. The informant

started the topic of payment of 35, meaning thereby 35 lacs

demanded by saheb, meaning thereby accused No.1, but he was not

able to pay it on that day. The applicant -Rupa Dhande told him

that it was his internal matter and he should solve it on his own.

Perusal of this transcript of second conversation indicates that the

informant wanted to invite her to discuss this topic with him.

However, the transcript of the recorded conversation indicates that

she was reluctant to talk to informant on that topic. On perusal of

this transcript of the recorded conversation of two phone calls there

is no statement or material to indicate that the applicant -Rupa

Dhande directly or indirectly made a demand of gratification. The

transcript of the recorded conversation further indicates that she

even did not suggest him to pay any gratification to accused No.1.

There is nothing in the transcript of the recorded conversation to

conclude that she was privy to this transaction in any manner. On apl.91.2022 judge.odt

the basis of the transcript of the recorded conversation it is not

possible to conclude that she abated this crime of demand of

gratification by accused Nos. 1 and 2 in any manner. These

recorded conversations between informant and the applicant -Rupa

Dhande is the basis of the application made by the accused No.2

under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. It is seen that the substantive

evidence vis-a-vis applicant -Rupa Dhande is consistent with this

recorded conversation. Learned Judge relying upon this recorded

conversation and the evidence of PW-2 was satisfied that applicant -

Rupa Dhande was one of the abator.

16. It is to be noted that apart from Rupa Dhande the

names of the 6-7 officials were mentioned in the FIR. As stated

above, in the recorded conversation between the informant and the

applicant -Rupa Dhande there is no iota of material to indicate that

she made a demand of gratification from the informant. It,

therefore, goes without saying that the role of Rupa Dhande and the

role of other officials whose names have been mentioned in the FIR

would be at par. PW-1 has deposed consistent with his report and apl.91.2022 judge.odt

stated the names of those officials as well, in his evidence. In my

view, the learned Judge has not taken this fact into consideration.

17. It is not the case of the prosecution that the demand

of gratification was made at any point of time by applicant -Rupa

Dhande from the informant. In the report, no role has been

attributed to applicant -Rupa Dhande in the matter of demand of

illegal gratification. Informant in his evidence has stated that Rupa

Dhande was a member of raiding team. Accused No.1. was the

incharge of the raiding team. In his evidence, he has attributed

specific role to accused No.1 and accused No.2. In his evidence at

para No. 5, he has stated about the telephonic conversation between

him and the applicant -Rupa Dhande. The said conversation was

recorded. The transcript of the said conversation is on record. In his

evidence, he has nowhere stated that during his telephonic

conversation with the applicant -Rupa Dhande, Rupa Dhande,

either directly or indirectly, demanded the gratification or

suggested to pay it to accused No.1. Perusal of his further evidence

and particularly cross examination on behalf of the accused No.1 apl.91.2022 judge.odt

would show that certain acts and statements attributed to Rupa

Dhande have been found to be the omission from his report.

Witness No.1 has admitted those omissions. He has categorically

admitted in his cross examination that it is not mentioned in his

transcripted conversation with the applicant- Rupa Dhande that he

told Dhande Madam that the amount of Rs.75 lacs demanded by

the accused No.1 was huge amount. He has admitted that this fact

is not there in the transcripted conversation. Learned Advocate

took me through the cross examination of this witness on behalf of

the accused No.2 and particularly para Nos. 53 and 54 of his

evidence. In his cross examination, he has admitted that he had

given report to CBI, Nagpur against the accused No.1 and other

officers of Income Tax Department, who were the members of

raiding team. In further part of his cross examination he was asked

to give an opinion about the correctness of the facts stated in the

panchanama.

18. The evidence adduced by the prosecution has to be

considered prima facie for the purpose of deciding the limited issue.

apl.91.2022 judge.odt

The oral evidence has been tested by the cross examination. The

evidence consistent with the transcripted conversation between the

informant and applicant - Rupa Dhande needs to be taken into

consideration. The evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 consistent with the

transcripted conversation between the informant and applicant-

Rupa Dhande falls short to invoke the provision of Section 319 of

the Cr.P.C. and add the applicant as an accused. PW-1 has admitted

that he had requested Mrs Rupa Dhande to help him and talk to

accused No.1. Perusal of his substantive oral evidence and the

report clearly indicates that there was no demand of gratification,

either direct or indirect, by Mrs Rupa Dhande from the informant.

The informant has reiterated this fact time & again.

19. It is pertinent to note that the learned Judge apart

from relying upon this recorded conversation between informant

and Rupa Dhande has relied upon the evidence of panch and police

witness. I have perused their evidence. Perusal of their evidence

would show that they have not said anything more than what has

been stated by the PW-1 and in the recorded conversation.

apl.91.2022 judge.odt

20. It is to be noted that the object underlying Section

319 is to see that the real perpetrator of a crime does not get

unpunished. The person whose role has been specifically spelt out

on the basis of the evidence, but has not been arrayed as an accused

by investigating agency for any reason, can be added as an accused

by invoking Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. The person, who therefore

appears to have committed the offence but not made an accused,

can be made to face trial by exercising the power under Section 319

of the Cr.P.C. However, the Court has to be very careful while

exercising the power. Before exercising the power, the Court must

be satisfied that there is a prima facie evidence to establish the

complicity of the person sought to be added as an accused. What is

required is much stronger evidence than mere probability of his or

her complicity. The test which is required to be applied is one

which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of

framing of a charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the

evidence, if goes un-rebutted, would lead to conviction. The

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hardeep Singh (supra) has

held that in the absence of such satisfaction the Court should refrain apl.91.2022 judge.odt

from exercising power under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. In my

view, the material sought to be relied upon in this case against

applicant is not sufficient to make a prima facie case with regard to

the complicity of the applicant -Rupa Dhande. Therefore, in my

view, the proposition of law in the case of Hardeep Singh (supra)

would support the contention of the applicant -Rupa Dhande rather

than contention of the accused No.2.

21. It is not out of place to mention that in this crime

thorough investigation was conducted by the CBI. After thorough

investigation, the investigating officer found prima facie evidence

against the accused Nos. 1 and 2. The investigating officer after

thorough investigation did not find any material to file the charge-

sheet against the remaining persons named in the FIR. The

applicant -Rupa Dhande has been cited as a witness by the CBI. In

my view, this conclusion drawn by the investigating officer on the

basis of the material would also support the contention of the

applicant -Rupa Dhande. Applicant - Rupa Dhande cannot be

added as an accused merely because she was member of the raiding apl.91.2022 judge.odt

party. It is further pertinent to note that she was junior to accused

No.1 and working under his supervision. In the facts and

circumstances, I am of the view that the application made by the

accused No.2 by invoking the provisions of Section 319 of the

Cr.P.C. on the basis of the above discussed material was not at all

justifiable. Learned Special Judge has committed a mistake in

granting the application relying on this material. In my view,

therefore, this application is deserves to be allowed.

22. The criminal application is allowed.

23. The impugned order dated 06.01.2022 passed by

the learned Special Judge, Khamgaon, District Buldhana, is quashed

and set aside.

24. The application Exh. 108, made by the accused

No.2 to add this applicant-Mrs Rupa Dhande as an accused in

Special Case ACB No. 04 of 2014, stands dismissed.

apl.91.2022 judge.odt

25. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No

costs.

26. The criminal application stands disposed of,

accordingly.

(G. A. SANAP, J.) Namrata

Signed By:NAMRATA YOGESH DHARKAR P. A.

High Court Nagpur Signing Date:22.02.2023 18:45