1 mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (STAMP) NO.195 OF 2011 The State of Maharashtra Applicant versus Kailash Pandurang Jadhav Respondent Mr.A.S.Shitole, APP for applicant State. Mr.Girish Kulkarni i/by M.G.Shukla for respondent. CORAM : R.V.MORE, J. DATE : 16th November 2011 PC : 1. By consent of learned counsel for respective parties, the criminal revision application is taken up for hearing as to admission. Heard learned APP for applicant-State and Mr.Kulkarni for the respondent. 2. By this revision the State challenges the order dated 19th June 2009 passed by the Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai below Exhibit-2 in ACB Special Case No.8 of 2006, whereby the respondent-accused no.28 came to be discharged of the offences punishable under sections 120-B, 120, 119, 217, 218, 409, 418, 420, 424, 465, 466 to 468, 471, 474, 477(a), 380, 381, 457 and 201 of Indian Penal Code as well as other offences under Prevention of Corruption Act and Maharashtra Prevention of Malpractices of University Board and other Specific Examinations Act, 1982. 2 3. The Secretary of Maharashtra Public Service Commission (MPSC) lodged a complaint on 20th June 2002 regarding replacement of original answer sheets of examination held on 18th March 2000 by MPSC for the posts of PSI, Sales Tax Inspectors and Assistants. The Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) took cognizance and after completing the investigation arrested many persons including the Members and Chairman of MPSC including the respondent herein. 4. As far as the respondent is concerned, it is the case of prosecution that he was in contact with Ms.Sayali Joshi and Dr.Shivare who were members of MPSC and conspired to get unmerited candidates recruited through MPSC by replacing their answer sheets and the respondent-accused induced and instigated the unmerited candidates to pay huge amounts for securing success in the examination and the accused collected huge amount from them. In order to substantiate their contention, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of transaction where Mr.Shivare transferred Rs. 2.00 lakhs in account of one Sunita Ghayal who is the sister of respondent. The prosecution also relied on the fact that Rs.1.20 lakhs was recovered from the house of Ms.Sunita Ghayal-the sister of accused. 5. It was the case of the respondent-accused that no answer sheet of any candidate was replaced and none of the candidates have stated that they have paid money to him for getting clearance from the examination. The only evidence upon the which the prosecution is harping against the respondent is transfer of Rs.2.00 lakhs by Dr.Shivare (Member of MpSC) to the account of Ms.Sunita Ghayal (sister of accused) and recovery of Rs.1.20 lakhs from the house of Ms.Sunita Ghayal. It appears that the amount of Rs.2.00 3 lakhs was transferred in account of Ms.Sunita Ghayal on 7th October 2002, whereas, seizure of Rs.1.20 lakh from her house was done after Dr.Shivare was retired. The allegations of replacement of answer sheets was in respect of 1999-2000. So, the above circumstances cannot connect the respondent with the alleged offence. None of the candidates appeared for the examination have stated that they have paid money to the respondent-accused nor have they stated that they got clearance from the MPSC examination by unfair means. Thus, the allegations made against the respondent- accused are not sufficient to conclude that the respondent is connected with MPSC scam. The allegations are on the basis of suspicion. The learned Special Judge has considered all the aspects of the matter and came to the conclusion that the case for discharge is made out by the respondent. 6. In view of the above, I find no reason to interfere in the impugned order. The criminal revision application is therefore dismissed. (R.V.MORE, J.) 4 mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.168 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (STAMP) NO.195 OF 2011 WITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (STAMP) NO.195 OF 2011 The State of Maharashtra Applicant versus Kailash Pandurang Jadhav Respondent Mr.A.S.Shitole, APP for applicant State. Mr.Girish Kulkarni i/by M.G.Shukla for respondent. CORAM : R.V.MORE, J. DATE : 16th November 2011 PC : 1. This application is filed by the State for condonation of delay of 540 days occurred in filing Criminal Revision Application (Stamp) No. 195 of 2011. Mr.Kulkarni appearing for the sole respondent has no objection if the delay is condoned. In view thereof, the criminal application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (b) (R.V.MORE, J.)