IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1248 OF 2000. WRIT PETITION NO.1248 OF 2000. WRIT PETITION NO.1248 OF 2000. Hanmantrao Sawalaram Tagade & Anr. ..Petitioners. versus The State of Maharashtra. ..Respondent. .... Mr. Vishwanath Takute, for the Petitioners. Mr. J.P.Yagnik, APP, for the Respondent-State. .... CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.S. OKA, J. : A.S. OKA, J. : A.S. OKA, J. DATE DATE DATE : 11TH AUGUST,2008. : 11TH AUGUST,2008. : 11TH AUGUST,2008. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners. The Petitioners are the original Accused in Special Case No.2/1992. A charge was framed on 18th October 1992 against the Petitioners for the offence under sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. An application for discharge was made by the Petitioners which came to be rejected by the order dated 21st July 2000. The Petitioners have challenged the said order by filing this Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 2. The Petitioners placed reliance on a decision - 2 - of the Apex Court in the case of Raj Deo Sharma V/s. State of Bihar, [AIR 1998 SC 3281] and prayed for discharge. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners submitted that apart from the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court, the case has been pending since the year 1992 and in the meanwhile, the Petitioner no.1 had retired by superannuation. He, therefore, submitted that the case deserves to be quashed on the ground of unreasonable delay in disposal of the trial. He also invited my attention to the Roznama of the proceedings which according to him shows that there was no default on the part of the Petitioners. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions. In view of the law laid down in the Apex Court, in the case of P. Ramchandra Rao V/s. State of Karnataka, [2002 (3) Mh.L.J. 145, the aforesaid case of Raj Deo Sharma is no longer a good law. Therefore, the Petitioners could not have sought discharge relying upon the decision in the case of Raj Deo Sharma (Supra). The Trial remained stayed as per the interim order dated 31st March 2001 passed by this Court. - 3 - 5. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ramchandra Rao (Supra), the case made out by the Petitioners cannot be accepted. Therefore, the Courts below were justified in not discharging the Petitioner. 6. Accordingly, there is no merit in the Petition. Hence, the Petition is disposed of with no order as to costs. The trial is expedited. [ A.S.OKA, J.] A.S.OKA, J.] A.S.OKA, J.]