1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.583 OF 2010 Kailas Patil Chikatgaonkar .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and ors. ..Respondents Mr.Ajit B.Kale, Advocate for petitioner Mr.N.R.Shaikh, A.P.P. for respondents 1 to 5 Mr.R.S.Deshmukh, Advocate for respondents 6 to 10 (intervenors) CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ. DATE : 8th October 2010 PER COURT : 1. This is a criminal writ petition filed by the petitioner seeking relief at prayer clause (C) to the petition for directing respondent No.1 to hand over the investigation of Crime No.192/2007 and 193/2007 registered with Police Inspector, Kranti Chowk Police Station, Aurangabad to respondents 4 and 5. The petitioner also prays vide prayer clause (D) to direct respondents 4 and 5 to complete the investigation so handed over within period of six months. 2. It appears that the petitioner had submitted a complaint on 23.12.2004 alleging therein large scale manipulation and corruption in the appointment of nearly 373 posts in the Aurangabad District Central Co- operative Bank during the year 2001-2002. On the basis of the complaint 2 of the petitioner preliminary inquiry was conducted and thereafter offence came to be registered in the year 2007. 3. The principal grievance of the petitioner in this petition is that the accused in the aforesaid crimes are political heavyweights and, therefore, the Police Officers including the aforesaid crimes are not likely to file the charge-sheet at all. Notice of this petition, therefore, came to be issued to the respondents and the respondents have filed their affidavit-in-reply. In the affidavit-in-reply at paragraph 8, the respondent has pointed out that nearly all the accused came to be arrested in Crime No.192/2007 for offence punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 13(1) (d) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and in Crime No.193/2007 about five accused came to be arrested for offence punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 13(1) (d) read with sec. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It is stated that the arrested accused had been kept in the Police custody and thereafter were placed in the Magisterial custody. The Investigating Officer has further stated that about 5000 documents have been collected and nearly statements of 90 witnesses have been recorded. 292 documents in Crime No.192/2007 and 1095 documents in Crime No. 193/2007 have been forwarded to the handwriting expert and the report of the handwriting expert is awaited. In the further affidavit, it is explained as to why the investigation is taking so much time. The explanation is the 3 magnitude of the documentary evidence which is involved in the present matter. It is further stated that the investigation is continuing and in about twelve weeks the charge-sheet would be filed. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Smt.Rajni Vishram Patil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and State of Maharashtra in Criminal Writ Petition no.1278 of 2007 decided on 18.7.2009. In the aforesaid judgment the Division Bench had found certain irregularities which were conducted during the course of investigation and in that light had directed the handing over of the investigation to another agency. Reliance is placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner on the judgment of Supreme Court in Vineet Narain and others Versus Union of India and another, 1998 (1) Supreme Court Cases 226, particularly at paragraph 60 of the report which reads thus: “60. In view of the problem in the States being even more acute, as elaborately discussed in the Report of the National Police Commission (1979), there is urgent need for the State Government also to set up credible mechanism for selection of the Police Chief in the States. The Central Government must pursue the matter within the State Governments and ensure that a similar mechanism, as indicated above, is set up in each State for the selection/appointment, tenure, transfer and posting of not merely the Chief of the State Police but also all police officers of the rank of 4 Superintendent of Police and above. It is shocking to hear, a matter of common knowledge, that in some States the tenure of a Superintendent of Police is on an average only a few months and transfers are made for whimsical reasons. Apart from demoralising the police force, it has also the adverse effect of politicizing the personnel. It is, therefore, essential that prompt measures are taken by the Central Government within the ambit of their constitutional powers in the federation to impress upon the State Governments that such a practice is alien to the envisaged constitutional machinery. The situation described in the National Police Commission's Report (1979) was alarming and it has become much worse by now. The desperation of the Union Home Minister in his letters to the state Governments, placed before us at the hearing, reveal a distressing situation which must be cured, if the rule of law is to prevail. No action within the constitutional scheme found necessary to remedy the situations is too stringent in these circumstances. 5. According to us both the judgments on which reliance is placed by the petitioner do not apply to the facts of the present case. According to us though the respondents have stated in their affidavit-in-reply that the charge-sheet would be submitted within twelve weeks from the date of filing of the affidavit, the Investigating Officer cannot be tied down to such terms. The investigation which is involved in the present case is on minuscule scale and the Investigating Officer should be free to proceed in the manner in which he chooses to proceed. We have examined the affidavit-in-reply and we do not find that any case is made out for transfer 5 of the investigation to respondent No.4 or respondent No.5. Further it appears that the apprehension of the petitioner that the Investigating Officers would not file charge-sheet against the accused as they are political heavyweights is an apprehension for which there is no basis, looking to the investigation which has progressed so far. 6. In that light of the matter, therefore, since no case is made out to transfer the investigation to respondents 4 and 5, there is no merit in the petition and petition is deserves to be dismissed. 7. At this stage, Mr.Kale, learned Counsel for the petitioner has referred to the judgment of Supreme Court in State of West Bengal and others Versus Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and others, (2010) 3 Supreme Court Cases 571 for urging the proposition before us that this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can monitor the investigation and issue appropriate directions. As far as the exercise of jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is concerned it is not of debate. As pointed out by us above, the fact situation in the present matter does not warrant the transfer of the investigation. 6 8. In that light of the matter, writ petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. ( A.V. POTDAR, J.) ( P.V. HARDAS, J.) (vvr/583.10criwp)