1 mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.901 OF 2011 Renu Singh Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra Respondent Mr.Surel Shah for petitioner. Mr.P.A.Pol, Public Prosecutor for State. CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKALR AND P.D.KODE, JJ. DATE : 17th October 2011 PC : 1. Two grounds have been urged before us. The first is that there is inordinate and unexplained delay in filing the charge sheet of almost eight years after registration of the FIR and ten years from the date when the enquiry was started against accused no.1-husband of the petitioner. This petition is filed only by accused no.2. 2. Insofar as first contention is concerned, after going through two separate affidavits filed by the respondents, it is not possible to countenance the grievance of the petitioner that prosecution against accused no.2 should be quashed on the ground of delay, as contended. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on an order passed by this Court in the present petition dated 18th July 2011. We fail to understand as to how this order would be of any avail to the petitioner. In the first place it was only a prima facie opinion noted in the said order. If the Court was so convinced with the purported inaction of the authority in submitting the proposal to the Government as fatal to continue with the prosecution against the petitioner, the Court would not have noted that the 2 Government be given an opportunity to expedite the proceedings pending before it. 3. Reverting to the two reply affidavits filed, it is noticed that steps were taken from time to time from 2001, which commenced with discrete enquiry against the accused no.1 in respect of disproportionate assets owned and possessed by him and in the name of his relatives. Thereafter, an open enquiry was commenced in January 2002. The affidavit also refers to the events till 2011. The accused no.1 being a member of Indian Forest Service, the matter was required to be dealt with in a particular manner and proposal was therefore submitted eventually to the Secretary, Environment and Forest Department, Government of India, New Delhi on 24th January 2011. The second affidavit gives break-up of steps taken between February 2008 till the proposal was submitted to the Secretary, Environment and Forest Department, Government of India, New Delhi. Going by the said details, it is not possible to accede to the petitioner's request of quashing the entire prosecution on the ground of delay. 4. The next grievance of the petitioner is about the time spent after the sanction is granted on 5th July 2008 by the State Government. As noticed earlier, the second affidavit filed by the respondents sworn by Mr.Ratnakar Gaikwad, Chief Secretary, Government of Maharashtra dated 16th July 2011 refers to the steps taken after 2008 till the proposal was submitted to the Secretary, Environment and Forest Department, Government of India, New Delhi and also thereafter. 5. During pendency of this petition one of the issue that came to our notice was that the Government of India was unable to take any decision in the matter for want of translation of documents which are stated to be running over 2,000 pages. The State Government initially prayed for three months time which request was, however, rejected and time bound direction was issued to the State of Maharashtra to complete the 3 translation of all the vernacular documents so that the same can be forwarded to the Government of India for further action. The learned Public Prosecutor states that the translation work is over and the documents have been submitted in the office of Director General of Police, Anti Corruption, Government of Maharashtra for being sent to the Secretary, Environment and Forest Department, Government of India, New Delhi. Assurance is given by learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of State of Maharashtra that the said documents will be forwarded to the Secretary, Environment and Forest Department, Government of India, New Delhi by a special messenger very shortly. We hope and trust that the compilation of translated documents be handed over in the office of Secretary, Environment and Forest Department, Government of India, New Delhi not later than ten days from today and compliance report be submitted to this Court in that behalf. 6. Taking any view of the matter, we are not inclined to accede to the request of the petitioner of quashing of complaint qua her on the ground of delay. The petition is dismissed. 7. It is hoped that the Government of India would take a final decision at the earliest so that the prosecution can proceed in accordance with law. A copy of this order be forwarded to the Secretary, Environment and Forest Department, Government of India, New Delhi for information and necessary action. (P.D.KODE, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)