IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 37 OF 2008 Vikram Kaul ..... ...... ......Applicant. V/s State of Maharashtra ..... ...... ......Respondent. Mr.Abhad H.H.Ponda, Adv. For the applicant. Mr.Y.S.Shinde, APP For the respondent. CORAM: A.P.DESHPANDE, J. 24/1/08 PC: By the present application the applicant takes an exception to an order passed by the Sessions Judge in Misc. Application No.334/07 in Special Case No.39/99. The application moved by the present applicant seeking discharge has been rejected by the impugned order. Accused No.1 at the relevant time was admittedly a public servant and he is the main accused who is facing charge for possessing assets disproportionate to his known source of income punishable under section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act and whereas the present applicant- accused No.3 is facing charge under section 13(2) read with 13(1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with section 109 of Indian Penal Code. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused No.1 is holding assets worth Rs.43,54,954/- which is totally disproportionate to his known income. It is further alleged that in between the period 1979-80 and 1991-92 the assets 1 referred to in the complaint were acquired by the accused. The bifurcation thereof is also given to indicate as to which of the assets are allegedly acquired in the name of the present applicant out of illegal gratification. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the vital document produced by the applicant which is an order passed by the Income-tax Commissioner though placed on record of the Sessions Judge has not been considered on the ground that at the stage of framing of charge material produced by the accused in defense cannot be taken into consideration. Learned counsel has then submitted that though not the Sessions Judge but this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under section 482 can very much look into said piece of evidence with a view to find out as to whether application filed by the applicant deserves a favourable consideration or otherwise. The submission is that the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa v/s Debendra Nath Padhi, 2005 SCC (Cri.), 415 squarely permits the High Court to look into the material produced by the accused if the same is of unimpeachable character of sterling quality. Reliance is placed on para 29 of the judgment which reads thus: “29. Regarding the argument of the accused having to face the trial despite being in a position to produce material of unimpeachable character of sterling quality, the width of the powers of the High Court under section 482 of the Code and Article 226 of the Constitution is unlimited where under in the interests of justice the High Court can make such order 2 as may be necessary to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice within the parameters laid down in Bhajan Lal case.” 2. Perusal of the aforesaid observations leave no room of doubt that what is held is that the width of the power of the High Court under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code and article 226 of the Constitution of India is unlimited where under in the interest of justice the High Court can make such orders as may be necessary to prevent the abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice within parameters laid down in Bhajanlal' s case. The parameters of the jurisdiction to be exercised by the High Court under section 482 or for that matter article 226, are summarised in para 108. In the present case the learned counsel for the applicant contended that the present case squarely falls in category Nos.2, 3, 5 and 7. It is also further contended that the situations described in para 108 are not exhaustive but illustrative in nature. Per contra learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the power of quashing of criminal proceedings need to be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in rarest of the rare cases. In the submission of the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor material and evidence placed on record by the accused cannot be considered while exercising jurisdiction under section 482 for the purpose of quashing the proceedings. Learned counsel for the applicant has then submitted that there is no material to show that the present applicant has abated the commission of offence. The submission is that in the absence of 3 any nexus being shown by the prosecution the applicant cannot be prosecuted along with public servant even for an abatement. 3. I have perused the order passed by the Sessions Judge. Perusal of the order reveals that in the FIR it is categorically stated that accused No.3 is the step son of accused Nos.1 and accused No.2 is his wife and accused No.4 is the step daughter of accused No.1. This relationship has been explained in the FIR which according to the prosecution shows the nexus for prosecuting the present applicant and with the help of said relationship it is tried to be contended that there does exists a nexus. A submission was also made before the Sessions Judge by the applicant that the applicant No.1 was arrested from the premises of accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4. At this stage I do not find any infirmity in the case of the prosecution which goes to reveal nexus and which fact situation has been accepted by the Sessions Judge. So far as the order of Income Tax Commissioner is concerned, I do not propose to make any comment on merit of the same. However I hold that the said order passed by the Commissioner of Income tax cannot be said to be a piece of evidence of unimpeachable character of sterling quality. In this view of the matter I do not propose to interfere with the order passed by the Sessions Judge. Hence application stands rejected. C.C. Expedited. 24.1.08 4