REVN.422-10 - 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION No. 422 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra ...Applicant Vs. Rakeshkumar Wadhwan ...Respondent *** Mr. D. R. More, APP for the Applicant-State. Mr. M. S. Mohite, for the Respondent. *** CORAM: V. M. KANADE J. DATE : DECEMBER 14, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard the learned APP for the applicant and the learned counsel respondent/ original accused No.13. This application is filed by the State being aggrieved by the order passed by the Special Judge & Additional Sessions Judge, Gr. Bombay dated 22nd May, 2009 in ACB Special Case No. 49 of 2007. By the said judgment and order, the Special Judge was pleased to allow the application filed by respondent/accused No.13 for discharge. REVN.422-10 - 2 - 2. The brief facts are as under- . The Additional Commissioner of Police, Mumbai Division, Mumbai directed inquiry against original accused Nos. 1 and 2 in respect of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to the known sources of income of accused No.1 who at the relevant time was an Inspector with the State Excise Department, Mumbai. The FIR was lodged on 6-3-2006 with ACB, Mumbai vide Crime No. 11 of 2006. On completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against accused Nos. 1 to 13. Accused No.1 was a public servant and accused No.2 is his wife. Accused Nos. 3 to 12 are the relatives of accused Nos. 1 and 2 and accused No.13, the respondent herein, is a Developer who had entered into an agreement with accused No.2 in respect of a flat which was to be given to her in lieu of her tenanted premises. Original accused No.1 was charged for the offences punishable under S. 13(1)(e) read with S. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and other accused were charged for the offences punishable under S. 109, 465, 467, 471, 472, 474 and 420 read with S. 120-B of the I. P. Code. 3 . So far as accused No.13, the respondent herein is concerned, he is a Director of M/s. Saphier Land Developers Pvt. Ltd. He was developing the two properties situate at St. Martine Road, Bandra (West) REVN.422-10 - 3 - Mumbai and Plot No. 16. After the public notice was issued by him in the newspaper, accused No.2 claimed to be a tenant in respect of the tenanted premises, situate in Plot No. 16 and she claimed that she was entitled to get the flat free of costs, in lieu of the said premises. Accused No.2 produced the relevant document in support of her claim, such as the electricity bill, ration card, voters list and accused No.13 accepted her claim and entered into an agreement with her. The said agreement was executed on 24-9-2003. According to the prosecution, accused No.2 had prior to executing this agreement made an application before the Registrar of Stamps who adjudicated her claim and permitted the stamp duty to be levied by treating her as a tenant. It is the case of the prosecution that accused No.2 in collusion with accused No.13 had created forged and fabricated documents and had evaded stamp duty to the tune of Rs.9,57,710/-. However, only the stamp duty of Rs.44,000/- was paid and thus, there is evasion of stamp duty of Rs.9,13,710/-. It is therefore, alleged that accused No. 2 and accused No.13 had cheated the government by evading the stamp duty. 4. The learned APP submitted that the trial Court has not taken into consideration the statement of witnesses which were recorded by the prosecution and has also not considered the various documents which REVN.422-10 - 4 - were on record, namely the agreement for sale, electricity bill, voters list, etc. He has taken me through the judgment and order of the trial Court. He submitted that at the stage of framing the charge, the trial Court has to see whether there is sufficient material on record to raise suspicion against the accused. He submitted that while deciding the application for discharge, it is not necessary to consider whether the material which is on record is sufficient for the purpose of convicting the accused. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of accused No.13 / respondent herein, has submitted that the trial Court has given cogent reasons for discharging the accused and therefore, no case is made out for interference with the impugned order, passed by the Special Judge. 6. After having heard both the parties, I am of the view that the trial Court has considered from all possible angles, and from the materials available on record, has come to the conclusion that there is no material against accused No.13 in respect of evasion of stamp duty and/or cheating the Government. It is an admitted position that the order passed by the Registrar of Stamps has not been challenged by the prosecution. Secondly, the prosecution also admittedly has not produced the alleged fabricated documents, namely the ration card, etc. on record. REVN.422-10 - 5 - Therefore, there is no material, whatsoever, on record to show that accused No.13 had conspired with accused No.2 and cheated the Government. It is a matter of record that respondent is a Developer and he had entered into an agreement for development of the property, situate at Bandra with the original owner. Thereafter, he had issued a public notice and pursuant to the said notice which was issued, the accused No.2 has made a claim that she was tenant of the said premises. The Developer had accepted her claim and had entered into an agreement with her. The claim of accused No.2 that she was tenant, was also accepted by the Registrar of Stamps. This being the position, question of cheating the Government by evasion of stamp duty, does not arise at all. No case, therefore, is made out for interfering with the order passed by the trial Court. Hence, the criminal application is dismissed. [ V. M. KANADE J.]