1 (Crim wp 2043 of 2010) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2043 OF 2010 Satish Gopinath Deshmukh ...Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra through Anti Corruption Bureau, Thane. ...Respondent ----- Mr.Sushil Nimbkar for Petitioner Mr.S.A.Shaikh-APP for the State ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 11TH AUGUST, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and the learned APP for the State. 2. The Petitioner is challenging the order passed by the Special Judge dated 9.4.2010 whereby, the application filed by the Petitioner was rejected. 3. Firstly, it is submitted that the Learned Special Judge did not assign any reason while rejecting Petitioner's application for discharge. Secondly, it is submitted that there is no material on record to indicate that the Petitioner had received money either 2 (Crim wp 2043 of 2010) from the contractor or from any other person. Thirdly, it is submitted that the alleged offence was committed during the period from the year 1987 to the year 1990 and the FIR was lodged in the year 1993 after the departmental enquiry which was initiated against the Petitioner was over. It is then submitted that the only allegation which is made against the Petitioner that he had purchased an agricultural equipment and other material to the tune of Rs.55 lacs, which was not required. It is submitted that on the basis of the said allegation, a complaint under sections 420, 406 and offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act is not made out. 4. The learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that the said complaint was filed as a result of political rivalry. He invited my attention to the chargesheet which was issued to the Petitioner, wherein it is noted that on account of complaint filed by Shri Anna Hazare, enquiry was held by the Government. 5. In my view, it is not possible to accept the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner. Firstly, while deciding the application for discharge, which is filed under sections 227 and 3 (Crim wp 2043 of 2010) 228 of the Cr.P.C., the trial court is not expected to appreciate the material on record but as to see whether prima facie there is sufficient material for proceeding against the accused. The Special Judge has observed as under: “Careful analysis and examination of the materials on record does indicate that there is a prima facie case to go against the accused at the trial or in other words, to justify framing of charge against them. The inconsistencies or the improbabilities are the matters/aspects of evidence, and can be approximately examined after a full fledged trial. At this stage, when one cannot jump to the conclusion about the prosecution being tainted with inconsistencies and infirmities, demolishing the case against the accused so as to give them the privilege of discharge under S.227 of Cr.P.C.” 6. The Special Judge, therefore, has given cogent reason while dismissing the application for discharge. Apart from that, perusal of the complaint does disclose 4 (Crim wp 2043 of 2010) that there is sufficient material to proceed against the accused. 7. As such, in my view, this is not a fit case for interfering with the order passed by the Trial Court while exercising its writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. Petitioner is, accordingly, dismissed and disposed of. (V.M. KANADE J.)