1 IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE APPELLATE APPELLATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.1597 OF 2006 PETITION NO.1597 OF 2006 PETITION NO.1597 OF 2006 Ashok Ashok Ashok Vishnu Waghmare Vishnu Waghmare Vishnu Waghmare ...... Petitioner Petitioner Petitioner vs vs vs Special Special Special Inspector-General of Inspector-General of Inspector-General of Police Police Police (Admn) & ors (Admn) & ors (Admn) & ors ...... Respondents Respondents Respondents Mr.P.M.Pradhan Mr.P.M.Pradhan Mr.P.M.Pradhan for Petitioner for Petitioner for Petitioner Mr.D.P.Adsule, Mr.D.P.Adsule, Mr.D.P.Adsule, APP APP APP for Respondents for Respondents for Respondents CORAM CORAM CORAM : : : B.H.MARLAPALLE, J B.H.MARLAPALLE, J B.H.MARLAPALLE, J DATED DATED DATED : : : 11th July, 2007 11th July, 2007 11th July, 2007 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1.1.1. Heard Mr.Pradhan, learned counsel for the Heard Mr.Pradhan, learned counsel for the Heard Mr.Pradhan, learned counsel for the petitioner petitioner petitioner who is one of the members of the police who is one of the members of the police who is one of the members of the police force force force in Maharashtra. At the relevant time he was in Maharashtra. At the relevant time he was in Maharashtra. At the relevant time he was attached attached attached to Vasai Police station. C.R.No.47 of to Vasai Police station. C.R.No.47 of to Vasai Police station. C.R.No.47 of 2004 2004 2004 has been registered by the Anti-Corruption has been registered by the Anti-Corruption has been registered by the Anti-Corruption Mumbai Mumbai Mumbai on 20th July, 2004 for offences punishable on 20th July, 2004 for offences punishable on 20th July, 2004 for offences punishable under under under sections 7,11,12,13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) sections 7,11,12,13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) sections 7,11,12,13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of of of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on the basis basis basis of the complaint submitted by one of the complaint submitted by one of the complaint submitted by one Mr.Champaklal Mr.Champaklal Mr.Champaklal Kapoorchand Kapoorchand Kapoorchand Jain on the same day. It Jain on the same day. It Jain on the same day. It isisis alleged alleged alleged that the petitioner demanded and in fact that the petitioner demanded and in fact that the petitioner demanded and in fact received received received an amount of Rs.50,000/- from the an amount of Rs.50,000/- from the an amount of Rs.50,000/- from the complainant complainant complainant allegedly for seeking his release from allegedly for seeking his release from allegedly for seeking his release from police police police custody remand till the period of 14 days custody remand till the period of 14 days custody remand till the period of 14 days and and and for his release on the very next day. for his release on the very next day. for his release on the very next day. 2 2.2.2. The petitioner had filed an application for The petitioner had filed an application for The petitioner had filed an application for discharge discharge discharge which came to be numbered as which came to be numbered as which came to be numbered as Misc.Application Misc.Application Misc.Application No.195 of 2005 and the same has No.195 of 2005 and the same has No.195 of 2005 and the same has been been been rejected by the learned Judge of the Special rejected by the learned Judge of the Special rejected by the learned Judge of the Special Court Court Court (ACB/NDPS) Greater Mumbai by his order dated (ACB/NDPS) Greater Mumbai by his order dated (ACB/NDPS) Greater Mumbai by his order dated 10th 10th 10th May, 2006 and hence this petition under May, 2006 and hence this petition under May, 2006 and hence this petition under Article Article Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with 227 of the Constitution of India read with 227 of the Constitution of India read with section section section 482 of Cr.P.C. 482 of Cr.P.C. 482 of Cr.P.C. 3.3.3. Mr.Pradhan, learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.Pradhan, learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.Pradhan, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated reiterated reiterated his contentions that prima facie there his contentions that prima facie there his contentions that prima facie there was was was no no no triable case made out against the petitioner triable case made out against the petitioner triable case made out against the petitioner and and and therefore, it is not necessary for him to go therefore, it is not necessary for him to go therefore, it is not necessary for him to go through through through the trial. As per Mr.Pradhan, the learned the trial. As per Mr.Pradhan, the learned the trial. As per Mr.Pradhan, the learned Judge Judge Judge of the Special Court was in error in of the Special Court was in error in of the Special Court was in error in rejecting rejecting rejecting the discharge application. Mr.Pradhan the discharge application. Mr.Pradhan the discharge application. Mr.Pradhan has has has placed heavy reliance on the report dated 27th placed heavy reliance on the report dated 27th placed heavy reliance on the report dated 27th September, September, September, 2006 submitted by the Inspector General 2006 submitted by the Inspector General 2006 submitted by the Inspector General of of of Police, Konkan Region to the Director General of Police, Konkan Region to the Director General of Police, Konkan Region to the Director General of Police, Police, Police, Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra State. tate. tate. 4.4.4. As stated earlier, the learned A.P.P.has placed As stated earlier, the learned A.P.P.has placed As stated earlier, the learned A.P.P.has placed before before before me the original file and the said file me the original file and the said file me the original file and the said file contains contains contains report dated 27th July, 2006 submitted to report dated 27th July, 2006 submitted to report dated 27th July, 2006 submitted to the the the Director General of Police, Maharashtra State Director General of Police, Maharashtra State Director General of Police, Maharashtra State and and and as relied upon by the petitioner in support of as relied upon by the petitioner in support of as relied upon by the petitioner in support of his his his petition for quashing the original proceedings petition for quashing the original proceedings petition for quashing the original proceedings inin in ACB Case No.54 of 2005 in so far as he is ACB Case No.54 of 2005 in so far as he is ACB Case No.54 of 2005 in so far as he is concerned. concerned. concerned. Prima facie, it does appear that the Prima facie, it does appear that the Prima facie, it does appear that the said said said report supports the petitioner’s claim for report supports the petitioner’s claim for report supports the petitioner’s claim for 3 discharge. discharge. discharge. However, on a closer scrutiny it is However, on a closer scrutiny it is However, on a closer scrutiny it is evident evident evident that the report cannot be a basis for that the report cannot be a basis for that the report cannot be a basis for quashing quashing quashing the proceedings pending against the the proceedings pending against the the proceedings pending against the petitioner. petitioner. petitioner. The report states that when the second The report states that when the second The report states that when the second instalment instalment instalment of Rs.25,000/- was allegedly received by of Rs.25,000/- was allegedly received by of Rs.25,000/- was allegedly received by Assistant Assistant Assistant Police Inspector Pardeshi on 10th July, Police Inspector Pardeshi on 10th July, Police Inspector Pardeshi on 10th July, 2004 2004 2004 at about 9 p.m. the said Police Officer was at about 9 p.m. the said Police Officer was at about 9 p.m. the said Police Officer was on on on duty on that date and at that time at Vasai duty on that date and at that time at Vasai duty on that date and at that time at Vasai police police police station and in so far as the second station and in so far as the second station and in so far as the second instalment instalment instalment is concerned apart from the complainant is concerned apart from the complainant is concerned apart from the complainant as as as is seen, there was no either independent is seen, there was no either independent is seen, there was no either independent witness. witness. witness. I hope that the Inspector General of I hope that the Inspector General of I hope that the Inspector General of Police Police Police is aware of the position in law namely these is aware of the position in law namely these is aware of the position in law namely these are are are issues which are required to be decided on the issues which are required to be decided on the issues which are required to be decided on the basis basis basis of the evidence before during trial. He of the evidence before during trial. He of the evidence before during trial. He should should should not have sent a report pre-empting the not have sent a report pre-empting the not have sent a report pre-empting the trial. trial. trial. Whether Pardeshi was at Vasai police Whether Pardeshi was at Vasai police Whether Pardeshi was at Vasai police station station station on duty at the relevant time and at the on duty at the relevant time and at the on duty at the relevant time and at the place place place is a matter of evidence and similarly just is a matter of evidence and similarly just is a matter of evidence and similarly just because because because witnesses are interested witnesses, their witnesses are interested witnesses, their witnesses are interested witnesses, their testimony testimony testimony cannot be discarded by the Court and if cannot be discarded by the Court and if cannot be discarded by the Court and if the the the Court finds that the testimony is otherwise Court finds that the testimony is otherwise Court finds that the testimony is otherwise reliable, reliable, reliable, nothing stops the Court from nothing stops the Court from nothing stops the Court from accepting the the the same. same. same. 5.5.5. The learned Judge of the Special Court has The learned Judge of the Special Court has The learned Judge of the Special Court has rightly rightly rightly considered the issues raised by the considered the issues raised by the considered the issues raised by the petitioner petitioner petitioner in support of his claim for discharge. in support of his claim for discharge. in support of his claim for discharge. I have also perused the affidavit in reply filed by have also perused the affidavit in reply filed by have also perused the affidavit in reply filed by the the the Inspector of Police from ACB, Mumbai and I am Inspector of Police from ACB, Mumbai and I am Inspector of Police from ACB, Mumbai and I am 4 satisfied satisfied satisfied that the impugned order does not suffer that the impugned order does not suffer that the impugned order does not suffer from from from any error apparent on the face of the record. any error apparent on the face of the record. any error apparent on the face of the record. No No No case has been made out to invoke the inherent case has been made out to invoke the inherent case has been made out to invoke the inherent powers powers powers of this Court under section 482 Cr.P.C. to of this Court under section 482 Cr.P.C. to of this Court under section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash quash quash the criminal proceedings presently pending the criminal proceedings presently pending the criminal proceedings presently pending against against against the petitioner before the Special Court. the petitioner before the Special Court. the petitioner before the Special Court. 6.6.6. Hence, the petition is rejected summarily. Hence, the petition is rejected summarily. Hence, the petition is rejected summarily. (B.H.Marlapalle, (B.H.Marlapalle, (B.H.Marlapalle, J) J) J)