{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.217 OF 2006 Manikrao Ramrao Shinde PETITIONER Age-30 years, Occ-Teacher & Social Worker R/o Sector-4, Plot No.1, N-7, CIDCO, Aurangabad Dist-Aurangabad VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENTS Through Chief Secretary, Mantralaya Mumbai 2. Union of India, Through Secretary, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi 3. Assistant Director General Health Department, Government Medical Store Depot, Central Mumbai 4. Deputy Director, Health Services Office, Mahavir Chowk, Opposite Printravel Hotel, Aurangabad 5. Joint Director, Food & Drug Administration, Government of Maharashtra Mantralaya, Mumbai 6. Hindustan Latex {2} Through its Managing Director, Thiruvanantpuram, Chennai 7. Investigating Officer, Crime No.53/2006 of Osmanpura Police Station, Local Crime Branch, Aurangabad 8. M/s Devgiri Latex Pvt. Ltd., Registered Office at K-117, Behind Siemens, MIDC Area, Waluj, Aurangabad-431 136 ....... Mrs.S.S.Jadhav, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.D.R.Kale, APP for respondent State Mr.M.M.Joshi, Advocate for respondent No.6 Mr.P.K.Joshi, Advocate for respondent No.8 ....... [CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.] DATE : 13th October 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER P.V.HARDAS, J.): 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondents No.1 and 2 to entrust the investigation of Crime No.53/2006 registered at Osmanpura Police Station, Aurangabad, to the Central Bureau of Investigation. 2. It appears that sometime in March 2006, complaints have been received at the Osmanpura police station about certain {3} clandestine activities being carried out in the Hirekar Poultry Farm in Patoda Shivar, however it appears, according to the petitioner, that no action was taken. On 28.03.2006, a team of investigative journalists of Lokmat group of newspapers along with Superintendent of Police (Rural), raided the premises of Hirekar Poultry Farm and noticed that several minors and ladies were unsealing the condoms from the cartons labeled as “Nirodh”, manufactured by Hindustan Latex Company and dumping them into unhygienic sacks and then repacking them under the brand name of “Masti” and “Zaroor”. Accordingly, crime No.53/2006 was registered at the Osmanpura police station for an offence punishable u/s 420 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. On 01.04.2006 the investigation was handed over to the local crime branch and section 409 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code came to be added. The learned APP, on instructions, states that pursuant to the completion of the investigation, a charge sheet for an offence punishable u/s 420, 406, 409, 201 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code has been filed by the crime branch, on 22nd July 2010. 3. We have heard Mrs.Jadhav, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the respondents. The petitioner has highlighted in the petition the magnitude of the offence which is being committed. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid offence could not have been committed without the connivance of the public servants and, therefore, at para 13 of the {4} petition, the petitioner states that the petitioner is approaching this Court seeking directions to prosecute all the officers responsible for the supervision, control and distribution of the condoms as well as those officers involved in the mal- administration of the implementation of the schemes like family planning and prevention of Aids etc. However, at prayer clause “D”, the petitioner has prayed that public servants, responsible for the said scam, may be directed to be joined as accused. The names of the so called public servants have not been disclosed and moreover those persons, against whom orders are sought for joining them as accused in the said crime, are not parties before us. The investigation has been completed and a charge sheet has been filed. In such circumstances, according to us, since it is not urged before us that the investigation is either tainted or there are infirmities in the investigation, the prayers made by the petitioner cannot be granted. 4. Thus, according to us, there is no merit in the petition and the petition is, therefore, dismissed. Rule stands discharged. In the circumstances there shall be no order as to costs. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] [P.V.HARDAS, J.] drp/B10/cwp217-06