1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.420 OF 2011 (Anil s/o Ratiram Fulzele ..vs.. The Director General of Police Anti Corruption Bureau and two others) =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Shri R.P. Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner, Shri N.W. Sambre, Government Pleader for the respondents. C ORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND P.B.VARALE, JJ. DATED : 23-11-2011 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, by which the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ directing that the investigation in Crime No.3021/2011 registered at the Gadchiroli Police Station, by the Anti Corruption Bureau, Gadchiroli, be transferred to the State C.I.D. The petitioner also prays for issuance of a writ for directing the State C.I.D. to investigate into the complaint of the petitioner dated 27- 7-2011. 2. The aforesaid offence i.e. Crime No. 3021/2011 has been registered by the Ante Corruption Bureau against the petitioner for offence punishable under Sections 7, 12, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of 2 Corruption Act. According to the petitioner, the petitioner is in possession of a tape recorded conversation with the panch witnesses about his false implication. The petitioner also claims that Investigating Officer is alleged to have received certain illegal gratification from the wife of the petitioner. The petitioner accordingly submitted a complaint against the Deputy Superintendent of Police Sheikh Shabbir Ahamad and forwarded the Compact Disk of the recorded conversation, which also included conversation with the two panchas in the said crime. The petitioner, therefore, prays that the State C.I.D. be directed to investigate the complaint of the petitioner. 3. Shri R.P. Joshi, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has urged before us that there are various infirmities in the investigation and deliberately certain aspects of the case, which would have proved the innocence of the petitioner, have not been looked into. Shri R.P. Joshi, therefore, contends that the investigation is most unfair and tainted. 4. Learned Government Pleader, who appears on behalf of the respondents, states that nearly 90% of the investigation has been completed. The report submitted by the petitioner against the Investigating Officer etc. was forwarded by the Superintendent of Police to the Director of Ante Corruption Bureau and the said report is pending consideration with the Director of Ante Corruption Bureau. It is also urged before us that a writ of mandamus 3 may not lie for directing to register the offence on the basis of the said report in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Aleque Padamsee Vs. Union of India 2007 (6) SCC 171 and Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., AIR 2008 SC 907. 5. Shri R.P. Joshi, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Babubhai Vs. State of Gujarat and others (2010) 12 SCC 254, particularly at paragraphs 32, 41 and 45 to urge before us that the investigation must be fair. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal and others Vs. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and others, (2010)3 SCC 571, particularly at paragraphs 68 & 70, to urge before us that this Court can direct another agency to investigate in the said crime. It is also urged before us that since serious allegations were made against the Investigating Officer, the investigation even if carried out by any other officer would be most unfair and the petitioner is likely to be prejudiced on account of the unfair investigation. In the affidavits-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondents, it is urged before us that the Investigating Officer against whom the petitioner had complained, has been disassociated from the said crime and the investigation is now entrusted to the Deputy Superintendent of Police Shri Khandekar. The investigation is virtually completed. 4 6. We have examined in detail the various documents annexed to the petition by the petitioner with a view to determine if the investigation is unfair or is a prejudice investigation. Prima facie we have not found that the investigation is tainted, which would necessitate the transfer of the investigation to the State C.I.D. In that light of the matter, therefore, we are not inclined to accede to the prayer of the petitioner for transfer of investigation. In respect of the other relief namely about registration of the offence, a writ of mandamus cannot be issued directing the police to register an offence in the light of the judgments of the Supreme Court adverted to above. In any event the complaint of the petitioner has been referred to the Director of Ante Corruption Bureau and the complaint is pending with him. The Director of Ante Corruption Bureau would take decision in accordance with law. The petitioner has alternate equitable remedies, which the petitioner may resort to in the event no offence is registered. 7. We thus find that there is no merit in the present petition. Ratio of the judgments on which the reliance is placed by the petitioner, are not applicable to the facts of the present case. 5 8. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE pma