- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.346 OF 2009 Shri Dattatray Vishwanath Shounak and Anr. ...Applicants vs. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent Mr.Prakash Naik for the applicant Ms S.V.Gajre A.P.P. for State CORAM: A.S.OKA,J. DATE : JUNE 11,2009 P.C.: 1 Heard the learned counsel for the applicants. The applicants are charged with offences under section 13(1)(e), 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). 2 An application was made before the learned Special Judge under section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 by contending that the case of the prosecution is that disproportionate asset held by the accused at Hingoli were seized which is not within the jurisdiction of the court of the learned Special Judge. On 9 th April 2009, when this petition was heard, the attention of the learned Public Prosecutor was invited to paragraph 3 of the impugned order dated 2 nd December 2008 which read thus : - 2 - 3 I have gone through the charge sheet. Charge against the accused is not only for earning income and the property at Hingoli or Nanded, but cash amount was also found in the Bank of Thane. Admittedly, he was serving at Palghar when the trap was laid against him for the offence u/section 7 of the Act. Therefore, part of the property earned by him as disproportionate assets is also earned at Palghar or Thane. 3 Thereafter, on 9 th April 2008 this court passed the following order : . Heard learned counsel for the applicant. He invited my attention to the paragraph no.3 of the impugned order. He states that the statement made therein that certain amount was found in the Bank of Thane, is factually incorrect. . Learned A.P.P is directed to placed on record a copy of charge sheet. . Place the criminal application for admission on 6 th May 2009. 4 Today, the learned A.P.P on instructions of the concerned Officer fairly states that the observations made by the learned Special Judge, Palghar in paragraph 3 that certain amount was - 3 - found in Bank of Thane is factually incorrect. 5. The learned Special Judge has decided the application filed by the petitioner on the basis of such incorrect observation. Therefore, proper course will be to send back the matter to the learned Special Judge for reconsidering the application in the light of statement made by the learned A.P.P on instructions of the concerned Officer. 6 Hence, I pass the following order : i) Impugned order dated 2 nd December 2008 is quashed and set aside. The learned Special Judge will hear the application at Exh.23 afresh and will pass an order in accordance with law. The Order shall be passed as expeditiously as possible. Criminal Application is disposed of in above terms. JUDGE