1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 493 OF 2009 Dr. Tukaram Appaya Shiware ..Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra ..Respondents Mr. V. Shekhar – Sr. Advocate with Mr. S. A. Vaidya for Petitioner. Mr. P. A. Pol – P. P. with Mrs. R. V. Newton – APP for State. CORAM: S. A. BOBDE, J. DATED : 14TH OCTOBER, 2009. P.C. : 1. Rule, returnable forthwith. By consent taken up for final hearing. 2. The petitioner is being prosecuted for offence under Sections 120(B), 119, 217, 218, 409, 418, 420, 424, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471, 474, 477(a), 380, 381, 457, 201, 34 of I.P.C. r/w. Section 13(1)(d), 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 r/w. 5, 7, 8 of Maharashtra Prevention of Malpractices in University, Boards and other Specified Examinations Act 1992, in respect of alleged mal practices and irregularities committed during the course of a competitive examination conducted by the Maharashtra Public Service Commission in March 2001. 2 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner was in no way concerned with the alleged mal practices since he had ceased to be a Member of M.P.S.C. on 11th January 2000 and hence there could be no possible complicity of the petitioner. 4. The learned P.P. had filed an affidavit of Mr. Sanjay Govind Parande, Addl. Superintendent of Police (Headquarters), Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB), Maharashtra State, Mumbai, who had stated in paragraph 5 of that affidavit that the petitioner had ceased to be the Member of the Maharashtra Public Service Commission in January 2000 and thus was not concerned with examination under investigation in as much as the whole process of the 1999 examination had started after his retirement. The learned P.P. has pointed out from paragraph 12 of the said affidavit that a Departmental Enquiry had been initiated against the officer for high handed investigation, defiance of authority, indiscipline and grave and unpardonable insubordination in connection with the investigation of the MPSC Scam Case. 5. In this view, the plea of the petitioner must be accepted. Petition is hereby allowed in terms of prayer clause (a), which reads as follows: 3 “(a) that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to invoke the inherent powers vested in it under Section 482 of Cr. P. C. and be pleased to call for the records and proceedings in Special Case No. 16 of 2006 in C.R. No. 33 of 2002 and after ascertaining the legality and propriety thereof, be pleased to quash and set aside Special Case No. 16 of 2006 in C.R. No. 33 of 2002 against the present petitioner in the interest of justice.” 6. Rule disposed of accordingly. (S. A. BOBDE, J.)