21. cr wp 2554-09.doc RMA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2554 OF 2009 Shantinath S. Patil .. Petitioner Vs The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mr. Deepak Deshmukh i/b Mr. V.N. Shingnapurkar for the Petitioner Mr. V.B. Konde-Deshmukh, APP for the State CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J DATE : 21st SEPTEMBER,2010. P.C.: 1. Heard learned advocate for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. 2. The petitioner is seeking quashing of F.I.R. No. 29 of 2009 lodged on 3rd July 2009 at Gadhinglaj Police Station under Sections 7, 12, 13(2) read with 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 3. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was holding post of Additional Public Prosecutor in Gadhinglaj. Complaint came to be received on 1st July 2009 from one Ms. Aruna Shintre alleging demand of bribe from her by the petitioner for submitting the appeal to the High Court in one of the cases in which she was the 1 21. cr wp 2554-09.doc complainant and the accused were acquitted therein. Trap came to be laid and one Shri. Kamble, Clerk was caught accepting a sum for and on behalf of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner came to be arrested. 4. The case of the petitioner is that at the relevant time, he was holding the post of Public Prosecutor which cannot be stated to be a "public servant" within the meaning of the said term as defined under Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It is submitted that when the petitioner cannot be said to be a "public servant", then the complaint itself could not have been entertained by the first respondent. Consequently, all steps in furtherance of such complaint are null and void and fully illegal, hence the FIR deserves to be quashed. 5. The issue whether a Public Prosecutor / Additional Public Prosecutor can be said to be a public servant within the meaning of the said term as defined under Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was considered by the Division Bench of this Court (Coram : B.H. Marlapalle & Anoop V. Mohta, JJ) in Writ Petition No. 2554 of 2009. The said Writ Petition came to be disposed of by order dated 16th August 2010, wherein, it was held that a Public Prosecutor / Additional Public Prosecutor is a public servant. 6. As the only ground raised in this petition is that the 2 21. cr wp 2554-09.doc petitioner being a public prosecutor is not a "public servant" and hence, he cannot be charged and tried for an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, in view of the above decision, there is no substance in this petition and the same is rejected. [SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] 3