1 mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.34 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.289 OF 2008 IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1017 OF 2008 Hemant Rajaram Desai Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra and another Respondents Mr.Subhash Jha i/by M/s.Law Global for applicant. Mr.Mihir Desai for original petitioner in WP No.1017 of 2005. Advocate General with Mr.P.A.Pol, AGP for State. CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE AND ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. DATE : 07th June 2010 PC : 1. Heard Mr.Jha, learned counsel for the applicant who is original respondent no.12 in Criminal Writ Petition No.1017 of 2005. The applicant prays for recall of the order dated 18th September 2008 which allowed the Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.289 of 2008 by this Court. 2. On 31st March 2008 a common order came to be passed in Writ Petition No.663 of 2003 and Writ Petition No.1017 of 2005. Writ Petition No.663 of 2003 has been filed by the State of Maharashtra challenging 2 the order passed by the Sessions Court directing to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- per month. 3. In the order dated 31st March 2008 this Court directed the respondents i.e. the State Authorities to pay an amount of Rs.3.00 lakhs to the mother of the deceased and without prejudice to the rights of either of the parties. This Court also noted the desire of the petitioner in Writ Petition No.1017 of 2005 to move an amendment application and directed that as and when such an application would be filed, an advance copy of the same to be served on the other side. Accordingly, the petitioner in Writ Petition No.1017 of 2005, who is the mother of the deceased, moved Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.289 of 2008 for amendment and the said application came to be allowed by order dated 18th September 2008. Accordingly, Writ Petition No.1017 of 2005 has been amended on 25th September 2008 and prayer clause (dd) has been added which reads as under :- "(dd) For a writ of Mandamus or a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing respondent no.15 to seek sanction for prosecution in respect of death of Khawaja Yunus, against the respondent nos.3 and 9 to 14 and further directing respondent nos.1 and 2 to grant sanction to prosecute respondent nos.3 and 9 to 14 for the offence under section 302 and for other offences in relation to Khawaja Yunus, his treatment in the police custody and his death". 4. In the order dated 31st March 2008 this Court noted that during pendency of the petitions, the Government had accorded sanction to prosecute four Police Officers and had refused such sanction to prosecute 3 other ten officers. It was under these circumstances that the petitioner (mother of the deceased) wanted to file an application seeking to amend the petition praying for the directions from this Court in regard to granting of sanction to prosecute the other ten police officers. The Government has not filed any application for recall of the order dated 31st March 2008 or the order dated 18th September 2008. In any case, by allowing to amend or add a prayer clause does not, in any event, mean that the Court has made up its mind to allow such a relief. Adding a relief along with other surviving reliefs will have to be considered on its own merits when Writ Petition No.1017 of 2005 is heard finally. 5. We, therefore, do not find any merit in this application and, therefore, the same is hereby rejected. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE, J.)