1 Revn. 24/2001 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.24 OF 2001 Mr. Sanjay Chimbulkar .... Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent Applicant present in person. Mrs. M.R. Tidke, APP for State. Coram : SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J. Date : 30th July, 2010 P.C. 1. The order dated 17th October 2000 passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai impugned in the Criminal Revision Application is of dismissal of the complaint filed by the applicant. The applicant at the relevant time was a worker of Janata Dal. The persons accused under the complaint were accused no. 1, the then Chief Minister of Maharashtra, accused no.2, the then Minister for State Urban Development, accused no. 3, son-in-law of accused no. 1, accused nos. 4 and 5 the then Commissioners of Pune Municipal Corporation, accused No. 6 City Engineer of Pune and accused no.7 Deputy Secretary of Urban Development Department. All the accused persons were alleged to have committed offences under Sections 120-B (Criminal Conspiracy), 166 (public 2 Revn. 24/2001 servant disobeying a direction of the law with intent to cause injury), 403 (criminal or dishonest misappropriation of movable property, or converting it into one s own use), 409 (criminal breach of trust by public servant), ’ 418 (cheating a person whose interest the offender was bound, either by law or by legal contract, to protect), 420 (cheating and thereby dishonestly inducing delivery of property, or making, alteration or destruction of a valuable security) r/w Section 114 (Abetment of offence) IPC. 2. The complaint was concerning final plot No.110 situate at Erandavane, Pune which had been reserved for garden in the year 1966 in the Final Development Plan. The acquisition proceedings in respect of the land came to be initiated as late as in the year 1980. Thereafter in the year 1982, the draft Development Plan was revised and the reservation for final plot no.110 was changed from garden to municipal school. On the consequent challenge to the acquisition by the owner of final plot no.110, the acquisition was declared to be illegal and the award was set aside. Later there was de-reservation of final plot No.110 with shifting of the school to a plot at Lohegaon. Thereafter, the owners developed the property by constructing a building thereon which building has been standing at the site for more than 10 years. 3. It is alleged in the complaint that the accused committed offences alleged against them in de-reserving final plot no.110 by shifting the 3 Revn. 24/2001 reservation of municipal school on the final plot to a plot at Lohegaon. The learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, rejected the complaint on three grounds. Firstly that since the complaint sought to prosecute public servants without obtaining sanction to prosecute. Secondly, that a Writ Petition filed making the same allegations against the accused persons was disposed off by the Division Bench of this Court giving directions for investigations through an impartial agency. In view of the directions to the State, the Court cannot take cognizance without sanction. Thirdly that even if it is to be said that there were some irregularities on the part of the accused persons while discharging the public duties, the irregularities could not be equated with the commission of offence for want of one of the major ingredients of mens-rea. 4. The applicant who appears in person has taken me through the complaint filed by him as well as the impugned order. In my opinion, there is no deficiency whatsoever or illegality in the impugned order. Hence, the Revision Application is dismissed. (Smt. R.P. SondurBaldpta, J.)