1 pdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2266 OF 2009 C.R.L. Narasimhan .. Petitioner Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and anr. .. Respondents Mr. Haresh Jagtiani, Senior Advocate, with Girish Dave, Ankit Rajput, P. Fernandes, Siddhesh Bhole and Punkaj Gupta i/by Dave Girish and Co. for petitioner. Mr. V.C. Gupte, Senior Advocate with Mr. R. S. Mhamane for respondent no.1. Mr. A.S. Gadkari, APP for respondent no.2-State. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. JUNE 25, 2010. P.C. We have heard Mr. Jagtiani the learned Senior Counsel i/by M/s. Dave Girish and Co. for the petitioner. Mr. Gupte appears for the respondent no. 1. Mr. Gadkari, the learned APP, appears for the State of Maharashtra. 2 The petitioner is one of the accused in Special Case No. 4 of 1998 arising from RC No. 4(A) BSC/93/DEL, which has been filed under the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992. In the said case, he had filed Misc. Application No. 359 of 2005 for being discharged and the learned Special Judge by a reasoned order dated 28/3/2007 was pleased to reject the said application. The petitioner, therefore, approached the Supreme Court in SLP (Cri) No. 2339 of 2007 and the same was dismissed on 4/5/2007. In this fresh petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner prays to invoke the inherent powers of this court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. so as to drop the charges framed against him and quash the complaint pending, qua the petitioner. One of the main grounds agitated in this petition is that the petitioner was not a public servant at the relevant time and he was in the employment of SBI Caps. which, as per the petitioner, is neither a Government company nor a statutory Corporation. In fact, the very same issue was available to the petitioner when he filed Misc. Application No. 3 359 of 2005 for discharge, but he did not raise the same. We are informed that the trial is likely to commence soon with recording of the oral evidence of the witnesses before the learned Special Judge. In these obtaining circumstances, we do not deem it appropriate to entertain this petition at such a belated stage and, in any case, if the petitioner desires to raise the very same issue that he was not a public servant, he may raise the same before the Special Court along with all other issues. With these clarifications, the petition is disposed and we make it clear that we have not entered into the respective contentions on merits. (ANOOP V. MOHTA,J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)