Bombay High Court
Bhausaheb Raosaheb Andhalkar vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 23 January, 2023
Bench: Nitin W. Sambre, R. N. Laddha
1/7
19.WP.5224.2021.doc
Digitally signed
ANANT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
by ANANT
KRISHNA KRISHNA NAIK
Date: 2023.01.27
NAIK
APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
14:42:47 +0530
WRIT PETITION NO. 5224 OF 2021
Bhausaheb Raosaheb Andhalkar ....PETITIONER
V/S
The State Of Maharashtra & Anr ....RESPONDENTS
Adv. Abhijit Kulkarni a/w Adv. Jeevandatt Argade for petitioner
Mr. A. R. Kapadnis, APP for respondent-state.
Mr. Amol Tambe, SP, ACB, Pune Region and Mr. Ganesh Kumbhar,
Dy. SP., ACB, Solapur Unit present.
CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE &
R. N. LADDHA, JJ
DATED : 23rd JANUARY, 2023
P.C.:
1. Heard.
2. Issue in the petition pertains to the directions to the
respondents to initiate appropriate legal action on the complaint
dated 14/03/2021 preferred by the petitioner. By the aforesaid
complaint dated 14/03/2021, petitioner has approached the
Director General, Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), State of
Maharashtra to conduct inquiry in the matter of disproportionate
assets gathered by one Mr. Rajendra Raut, public representative
and his family members which is allegedly disproportionate to his
known source of income.
akn 1/7
19.WP.5224.2021.doc
3. Since there was no progress in the matter of inquiry on
17/01/2023 after having perused the report in the matter of
inquiry, this Court directed Superintendent of Police, ACB, Pune
region to file affidavit. It was directed that the said officer shall
also disclose the statistics as to the number of cases pending
inquiry and details about available staff against the sanctioned
strength.
4. In compliance of the aforesaid order, Superintendent of
Police, ACB has placed on record the following details:
"2. I say that I have joined as Superintendent of Police,
Anti-Corruption Bureau, Pune Range, Pune on 08/11/2022.
I further say that after taking the charge, I took review of
all the five district (Pune, Satara, Sangali, Solapur &
Kolhapur) which come under the Pune range and started
supervising the same. I say that while taking review of
A.C.B., Solapur Unit, the available man power and
pendency with the concerned officers of Solapur Unit was
as below:
SN Officers Name Trap Criminal Open Discreet D Application
Cases Misconduct Enquiry Enquiry Application
Kumbhar, DySP
Mahadik, PI
Koli, PI
5. What can be inferred from the aforesaid statistics placed by
Superintendent of Police, ACB, Pune on record which is corrected
akn 2/7
19.WP.5224.2021.doc
during the course of the argument that out of 58 Trap Cases,
investigation in an about 20 cases is already completed so also in
22 D-applications out of 51.
6. Be that as it may, what can be noticed is, all the available
staff for Solapur Unit of ACB, each of the officer is doing
investigation / inquiry in an around 100 matters on an average. It
is informed that in case of inquiry in relation to cases under the
Prevention of Corruption Act on an average 3 to 6 months time is
consumed. If we go by the aforesaid statistics and time consumed
in the investigation/inquiry of each of the matter pending with
ACB, what can be noticed is, only for Solapur Unit it will take more
than 5 years to complete the pending work in as on date pending
cases as there will be addition of new cases in the aforesaid period
of five year.
7. The Apex Court in the matter of Lalita Kumari vs.
Government of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. reported in 2014 (2)
SCC 1 in paragraph no. 120.7 has observed that a preliminary
nquiry should be made in time bound manner and in any case
such inquiry should not exceed the 7 days. In case in hand with
Solapur Unit 105 open inquiries are pending, 35 discreet inquiries
are pending and 51-22 i.e 29 D-applications and 54 simple
akn 3/7
19.WP.5224.2021.doc
applications are pending.
8. We would also like to place reliance on the judgment of the
Apex Court in the matter of Subramanian Swamy Vs.
Manmohan Singh & Anr. reported in (2012) 3 SCC 64. Apex
Court in the said judgment has observed that private citizen has
right to file complaint against corrupt public servants which must
be equated with his right to access the Court in order to set
criminal law in motion against the corrupt public officials. Apex
Court further recognizes such act as constitutional legal right. It is
further observed in para 57 that the said judgment that delay at
the end of the investigating/inquiry authorities is unfortunate. It
has further fixed time limit of three months for grant of sanction
for initiating prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
In para 75 of the said judgment, Apex Court has observed thus : -
75. Therefore, in every case where an application is
made to an appropriate authority for grant of prosecution
in connection with an offence under PC Act it is the
bounden duty of such authority to apply its mind urgently
to the situation and decide the issue without being
influenced by any extraneous consideration. In doing so,
the authority must make a conscious effort to ensure the
rule of law and cause of justice is advanced. In
considering the question of granting or refusing such
sanction, the authority is answerable to law and law
alone. Therefore, the requirement to take the decision
with a reasonable dispatch is of the essence in such a
situation. Delay in granting sanction proposal thwarts a
akn 4/7
19.WP.5224.2021.doc
very valid social purpose, namely, the purpose of a
speedy trial with the requirement to bring the culprit to
book. Therefore, in this case the right of the sanctioning
authority, while either sanctioning or refusing to grant
sanction, is coupled with a duty.
9. Furthermore, social impact of delay in causing inquiry has
been dealt with in paras 68 and 69 of the said judgment as
under :-
"68. Today, corruption in our country not only poses a
grave danger to the concept of constitutional
governance, it also threatens the very foundation of
Indian democracy and the Rule of Law. The magnitude of
corruption in our public life is incompatible with the
concept of a socialist, secular democratic republic. It
cannot be disputed that where corruption begins all
rights end. Corruption devalues human rights, chokes
development and undermines justice, liberty, equality,
fraternity which are the core values in our preambular
vision. Therefore, the duty of the Court is that any
anti-corruption law has to be interpreted and worked out
in such a fashion as to strengthen the fight against
corruption. That is to say in a situation where two
constructions are eminently reasonable, the Court has to
accept the one that seeks to eradicate corruption to the
one which seeks to perpetuate it.
69. Time and again this Court has expressed its dismay
and shock at the ever growing tentacles of corruption in
our society but even then situations have not improved
much. (See Sanjiv Kumar v. State of Haryana & Ors.;
State of A.P. v. V. Vasudeva Rao; Shobha Suresh Jumani
v. Appellate Tribunal; State of M.P. v. Ram Singh; J.
Jayalalitha v. Union of India & another; and Major S.K.
Kale v. State of Maharashtra)."
akn 5/7
19.WP.5224.2021.doc
10. In the aforesaid background, it will be appropriate in our
opinion to place the aforesaid matter before the Additional Chief
Secretary, Home Department so as to enable him to have stock of
situation particularly the number of cases handled by each of the
officer from ACB so as to have timely results on the investigation
having regard to the law laid down in the matter of Lalita Kumari
(supra).
11. We expect the response of Additional Chief Secretary, Home
Department in the case in hand within a period of four weeks i.e.
by 24/02/2023. Let the matter be placed before this Court on
27/02/2023.
12. We have clarified that only for the purpose of demonstrating
that the work load with each of the officer working with ACB is
comparatively on higher side particularly when results cannot be
secured within a reasonable time the statistics is taken into
account. However, there might be cases qua other regions of
Mumbai, Pune, Nagpur etc. where such pendency is on much
higher side. As such, we expect Additional Chief Secretary, Home
Department to look into the matter by taking into account the
statistics of entire strength as to the pendency of inquiry with
ACB.
akn 6/7
19.WP.5224.2021.doc
13. The statement made by learned APP on instructions from the
SP, Pune Region, ACB that the inquiry in response to the complaint
made by complainant shall be completed within a period of three
months is accepted.
(R. N. LADDHA, J) (NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.)
akn 7/7
