REVN.662-09 - 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION No. 662 OF 2009 Rekha Shailendrakumar Roy ...Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents *** Mr. M. B. Shukla i/b Girish Kulkarni & D. A. Bhalerao, for the Applicant. Mrs. M. R. Tidake, APP for Respondent No.1. Mr. Milind Sawant, for Respondent No.2. *** CORAM: V. M. KANADE J. DATE : AUGUST 24, 2010 P.C. . Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and respondent No.2. The applicant is aggrieved by the order passed by the Special Court, who was pleased to reject his application for discharge in a criminal case instituted by the CBI against her for having found in possession of the assets which were disproportionate to her known source of income. REVN.662-09 - 2 - 2. It is submitted that a sanction has not been obtained before launching the prosecution by the CBI against the applicant for the offences punishable under S. 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It is submitted that the CBI could not have initiated the prosecution again under different provisions of the said Act. It is submitted that this act was clearly violative of Art. 20(2) of the Constitution of India. It is not possible to accept this submission. It is an admitted position that earlier prosecution was launched for the offences punishable under S. 7 and 13(2) read with S. 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 whereas the present prosecution is launched for the offences punishable under S. 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. That being the position, it cannot be said that applicant is being prosecuted twice for the same offence. Hence, the provisions of Art. 20(2) of the Constitution of India are not attracted. Hence, there is no substance in the submissions made on behalf of the applicant. The criminal revision application is therefore, dismissed. [ V. M. KANADE J.]