1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2697 OF 2009 Shantilal Jawanmal Rawal .. Petitioner. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr.M.S.Karnik for the petitioner. Mrs.P.P.Shinde APP for the State. Mr.Pankaj Savant with Subhash Jadhav i/b ALMT Legal for respondent no.3. CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE & ANOOP V.MOHTA, JJ. DATED : 22ND JUNE, 2010. P.C. Heard Mr.Karnik, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs.Shinde, learned APP for the State and Mr.Savant, learned counsel for respondent no.3. 2. Respondent no.3 is the elected corporator from Ward No.116 of Pune Municipal Corporation. The petitioner alleges that respondent no.3 was hand-in-gloves with another corporator by name Shri Rajendra @ Rajan Namdevrao Kachi. On the basis of report/information provided by the petitioner a trap was led by the Anti Corruption Bureau on Mr.Kachi and he was caught red-handed while accepting illegal gratification from the petitioner by way of a deal to protect the alleged illegal shed which was constructed by the petitioner. Respondent no.2 has by his order dated 22nd March, 2009 granted sanction under section 19(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for prosecution of Shri Rajan Kachi, Corporator S 2 from Ward No.79 of Pune Municipal Corporation. 3. The petitioner claims that similar order was also required to be passed against respondent no.3 as the gratification was to be shared between Shri Kachi and respondent no.3. By the impugned order dated 27.4.2009, respondent no.3 has refused permission to prosecute respondent no.3 under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. We have perused the said order and respondent no.2 has specifically stated that the material placed before him did not justify such a sanction. The order impugned thus shows application of mind on the part of respondent no.2 while passing the impugned order. It is also admitted that when the trap was led it was only Shri Kachi, who was caught red handed and respondent no.3 was nowhere around. Mr.Karnik, learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to the alleged telephone dialogue between the petitioner and Shri Kachi, as reproduced in the trap panchnama. We have gone through the same and we are satisfied that there is no case made out to cause interference with the order passed by respondent no.2 declining grant of sanction for the prosecution of respondent no.3. 4. Hence this petition must fail and same is rejected. (ANOOP.V.MOHTA,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.)