1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE Criminal Revision Application No.198 of 2006 Shri Pramod Raoji Doshi Applicant Vs. State of Maharashtra Respondent Mr.Girish Kulkarni for applicant. Mr.J.P.Yagnik, APP for State. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE, J. Reserved on : June 26, 2008. Pronounced on : July 18, 2008. JUDGMENT : 1. The revision applicant is one of the accused (accused no.9) in ACB Special Case No.42 of 1991 which is presently pending for trial in the Court of Special Judge (under the Prevention of Corruption Act) for Greater Mumbai. He had submitted an application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. for discharge and the said application came to be registered as Misc. Application No.124 of 2004 and it was rejected by the learned Special Judge on 2 17/10/2005. This revision application is directed against the said order rejecting Misc. Application No.124 of 2004. 2. It was submitted by Mr.Girish Kulkarni, the learned counsel for the applicant that there was no case, even prima facie, made out against the applicant (original accused no.9) worth his trial in ACB Special Case No.42 of 1991 and, therefore, his application for discharge ought to have been allowed by the trial Court. It was submitted that on 5/5/1982 an application for measurement of CTS No.E-105, Bandra was submitted by Shri Omprakash Kukreja on behalf of Smt. Nalini Bhole and consequently on 28/6/1982 Shri P.T.Pokale, Municipal Surveyor measured the plot and prepared Vaslewar as well as measurement plan. He worked out the plot area as 1670.1 sq.mtrs. as against the original recorded plot area of 1474.9 sq.mtrs. The Vasalewar and measurement plans were checked and signed by Shri A.K. Thakur - Sheristedar. Shri R.S.Kanthe also signed the same on 24/9/1982 and submitted his report to Shri G.D.Pawar, SLR, BSD requesting to issue area correction order certifying that the plot area was 1670.1 sq.mtrs. of CTS No.E-105, Bandra. On 3 18/11/1982 Shri G.D.Pawar, SLR, BSD issued the area correction receipt changing the plot area from 1474.9 sq.mtrs. to 1670.1 sq.mtrs. and on 20/11/1982 Shri P.T.Pokale made mutation entry on the original PR card and the same was certified by Shri R.S.Kanthe. Mr.Kulkarni pointed out that the present applicant for the first time on 2/12/1982 in his capacity as an Architect of M/s. Pylon Projects Consultants submitted an application to CTSO No.III, BSD, Santacruz requesting to supply a certified copy of PR card extract of CTS No.E-105, Bandra. He also paid the copying charges on 4/12/1982. It was, therefore, submitted that the applicant came into picture for the first time on 2/12/1982 and the employees of the Corporation had in fact completed the final action of effecting the mutation entry with increased area on 20/11/1982. It was submitted by Mr.Kulkarni that on these obtaining circumstances, even prima facie there could be no offence for facing trial against the applicant in ACB Special Case No.42 of 1991. 3. Though the applicant submitted the application on 2/12/1982 or 13/12/1982, the fact remains that the application was dated 9/11/1982 and the correction slip was issued by Shri G.D.Pawar, SLR, BSD for the 4 first time on 18/11/1982 and, therefore, there could be no basis for submission of the application dated 9/11/1982 as on that date and, therefore, the contention of Mr.Kulkarni that the applicant was not associated with M/s.Pylon Projects Consultants at any time prior to 2/12/1982 cannot be accepted. In fact Mr.Kulkarni could not produce or point out any prima facie documentary evidence to show that the applicant was not associated as an Architect of M/s.Pylon Projects Consultants at any time prior to 2/12/1982. 4. In the impugned order it has been clearly observed by the learned Special Judge that in the application dated 9/11/1982 and submitted on 13/12/1982 to issue corrigendum for higher area, reference was made to the earlier order passed by the ULC Department and the applicant was aware that the total area of CTS E-105, Bandra was only 1474.9 sq.mtrs. These are prima facie findings recorded by the learned Special Judge in support of his finding that there was a prima facie case made out against the applicant to face the trial in ACB Special Case No.42 of 1991 and the discharge application was, therefore, devoid of merits. I am satisfied that these findings recorded by the trial Court are well 5 reasoned and they cannot be termed as erroneous or perverse or illegal. 5. Hence this revision must fail and the same is hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim order passed on 22/1/2007 stands vacated. (B.H.MARL