-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2225 OF 2007 ALONG WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 22 OF 2009 Devendra S Doctor ).. Applicant Versus Union of India and others ).. Respondents Mr Devendra S Doctor, Petitioner, present in person. Mr Mohan Parsaran, Additional Solicitor General, a/w Mr Suresh Kumar for Income Tax Department. Mr R B Raghuwanshi, Additional Solicitor General, a/w Mr J C Satpute and Mr Vinod Joshi for Union of India. Mr Mahesh Jethmalani for Respondent No.6. Smt V R Bhosale, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State. CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. DATED : 6TH FEBRUARY 2009 P.C. We have heard the Petitioner, who appears in person, and -2- the learned Additional Solicitor General for the Union of India and the Income Tax Department. It has been stated at the bar that in furtherance to the Order of this Court dated 16th January 2009, draft charge sheet is ready and copy of the draft charge sheet in a sealed cover is placed on record. The same is taken on record. As the charge sheet ready, we direct the CBI to file the same before the Court of competent jurisdiction without any further delay. A copy of the draft charge sheet as prayed may also be furnished to the Department to examine the matter from different points of view in accordance with law. 2. We are not recording any finding of guilt on any of the charges or affirm the case of the prosecution in any regard. It will be open for the Department to file charge sheet before the competent jurisdiction and prove its case in accordance with law. The rights and pleas of the said Respondent are kept open. He would be at liberty to take such pleas and recourse to such action as may be permissible in -3- accordance with law. 3. As far as the Petitioner is concerned, vide Order dated 23rd October 2008, the Division Bench of this Court had made certain observations that the Petitioner at that stage cannot pray any such substantive relief. The contention of the Petitioner before us is that he has made certain averments indicating misuse of power and office by Mr Ajay Kumar Singh. We do not consider it necessary to examine the allegations made by the Petitioner in this proceeding. However, we dispose of this Petition finally only with the observation that the Department and/or the Union of India may examine the averments made by the Petitioner in his complaint and if the same are not covered in the charge sheet already sought to be filed before the Court of competent jurisdiction, it may consider the same and pass appropriate orders after hearing Mr Ajay Kumar Singh. 4. It is also brought to our notice that in order to avoid -4- impediments, the matter is being looked into by the highest authority in the Ministry of Finance and once they receive the charge sheet and report of investigation by the police, they will proceed with the matter. 5. Writ Petition is finally disposed of. No order as to cots. 6. In view of the disposal of the Writ Petition, nothing survives in Criminal Appeal No.22 of 2009 and the same is disposed of accordingly. CHIEF JUSTICE DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.