1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2579 OF 2009 Shri Padmanath Bhuranath. ... Applicant. V/s. State of Maharashtra (At the instance of CBI, EOW). ... Respondents. Mr. V.T. Tulpule i/b. Harshad Kandalkar for the Applicant. Mrs. R.V. Newton, APP for the Respondent. CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. DATED : 04th JANUARY 2010. P.C. :- The Applicant/Original Accused No.7, by this Application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. prays for setting aside the order dated 16th January 2009 passed by the Special Judge for C.B.I. Cases, Greater Mumbai. That order was passed on a Misc. Application No.307 of 2007 in this Special Case No.55 of 2002 @ 34 of 2004. 2. The only contention raised before me by Mr. Tulpule, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Applicant is that the Applicant could not have been held even prima-facie guilty of the offences alleged under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Inviting my attention to the charges and more particularly, under the heading SIXTEENTHLY, Mr. Tulpule submits that the prosecution could not even prima-facie prove the allegation that the other accused arranged for the Jaipur visit of the present Applicant and his wife. 2 That visit was not in-connection with a marriage but for attending the 12th day ceremony after the death of a near relative. In such circumstances and when all that the Applicant is required to do in law is to sign the documents produced before him after appraisal by the concerned Officers, then, no prima-facie case is made out by the Applicant being guilty of the offence alleged against him. 3. Inviting my attention to the Circular issued by the Department, Mr. Tulpule submits that the Applicant was at the relevant time posted as the Assistant Commissioner and he could not have been expected to appraise and scrutinize the documents. That was the job of the Officer/employee subordinate to the Applicant. Having merely signed the documents, no role can be attributed to the Applicant and therefore, the discharge application should have been granted. The proceedings themselves are nothing but a harassment of an official who has retired after rendering 34 years of meritorious service. 3. There is no substance of in any of these contentions. The learned Trial Judge had before him the charge-sheet alleging as to how the other accused who are stated to be absconding and the employees of the Department have cheated the Customs Department by claiming and obtaining duty drawback on the basis of forged documents. The allegations are serious. The export of garments has been the basis for obtaining the duty drawback but in effect there have been no exports. In these circumstances, outlining the role of each of the accused in the conspiracy and further alleging that as far as this Applicant is concerned, he played a vital role, that the learned Special Judge proceeded against the Applicant. Whether the Circular was in force at the relevant time and what is its legal effect qua the power of the Applicant are not 3 the matters which can be decided at this stage. More so, when it is alleged that the sanctioning of the duty drawback is allegedly on the basis of forged and bogus shipping bills. Therefore, prima-facie the Applicant cannot escape the charge of abusing the official position. The charge is of unduly favouring the other accused in sanctioning of duty drawback claims. The Application for discharge could not have been granted merely on the basis of some stray arguments that the Applicant did not avail off the air-tickets forwarded by the prime accused for journey to Jaipur. To my mind, this cannot be the basis for discharging the accused. The allegations must be seen in their entirety and so seen and perused, the learned Judge was in no error in refusing to discharge the Applicant/Accused No.7. The fact of rendering services to the Department and retiring therefrom after an alleged unblemished record is something which could not be influencing the Special Judge at this stage. The other matters including the powers of the Applicant and his duties as an Assistant Commissioner can be gone into while the evidence is being recorded. 4. In the aforementioned circumstances and finding that no case is made out for invoking the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. so also the learned Judge committing no error apparent or perversity in dismissing the discharge application, this Application is dismissed. (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J.) 4