1 cri.wp no. 2904 of 2010 hvn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2904 OF 2010 Raghavendra Nagappa Ilger ... Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra ... Respondent Mr. Umesh A. Mankapure, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.S. Hingorani, A.P.P. for State. CORAM : SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA,J. DATED : FEBRUARY 28, 2011 P.C. 1. This writ petition is preferred against the order dated 17th August, 2010 passed by the Sessions Court, Sangli dismissing the criminal revision application preferred by the petitioner arising from the order of the trial court rejecting his application for discharge. 2. The brief facts are that the petitioner had applied for "No Objection" certificate of Gram Panchayat Madhavnagar for shifting of his wine shop from Amarai Sangali to Madhavnagar. 2 cri.wp no. 2904 of 2010 The certificate was given to him by the original accused no. 1, the then Sarpanch of Grampanchayat of village Madhavnagar. By using that certificate, petitioner shifted his wine shop to Madhavnagar. According to prosecution, the petitioner in collusion with accused no. 1 and her husband accused no. 3 misused the letterheads of the Gram­Panchayat and prepared the certificate though no meeting of the Gram­Panchayat had been held and no resolution passed for grant of "No Objection" Certificate. The petitioner contends that he cannot be said to be responsible for the misuse of the letterheads and issuance of the false certificate since he had merely applied for it. According to him, the manner in which the certificate was issued, was really a matter between accused nos. 1 and 3 and the Gram Panchayat. Therefore, he cannot be said to have played any role in the offence alleged. 3. Since the specific case of the prosecution is of collusion between the three accused and since the certificate have been issued for the benefit of the petitioner and since on the basis of 3 cri.wp no. 2904 of 2010 which false certificate the petitioner has shifted his wine shop to Madhavnagar. it cannot be said, at this stage of the proceedings, that there is no material whatsoever to frame charge against the petitioner. The Sessions Court has therefore, rightly rejected the criminal revision application. Hence, the petition is dismissed. [Judge]