1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.60 OF 2010 Mr. Kashinath Jairam Shetye & 2 Ors. …. Petitioners V/s. The Police Inspector & Anr. …. Respondents Mr. R. Menezes, Advocate for the Petitioners. CORAM : N.A. BRITTO, J. DATE : 7th JANUARY, 2011 ORDER : Heard Shri Menezes, the learned Counsel on behalf of the petitioners. Perused the record. 2. This is a revision petition and is directed against order dated 18/12/2010 of the learned Special Judge/Sessions Judge, Panaji, by which the objection taken by the petitioners, for the respondents to be represented by Shri S.R. Rivonkar, Public Prosecutor has been rejected. 3. As submitted by the learned Counsel, on a complaint/FIR filed by Shri Mauvin Godinho against Shri Manohar Parrikar alone Crime No.239/2006 dated 25/10/2006 was registered at the Panaji 2 Police station under Sections 409, 421, 423, 431, 432, 463, 468, 471 r/w 120 B IPC and Sections 10 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and now is transferred to the CBI for the purpose of investigations and is being investigated by the respondents herein. 4. The said Shri Manohar Parrikar appears to have been the Chairman of a core committee which managed the affairs of IFFI, 2004. The core committee has twelve members including the present Chief Minister Shri Digamber Kamat, who was the then Minister for Power, as can be seen from para 8 of the application dated 3/05/2010 filed by petitioner no.1 (at page 86 of the paper book). 5. The petitioner no.1 filed application dated 26/04/2010 to respondent no.1 contending that the various irregularities committed by the said core committee were not being considered and/or investigated by him. Thereafter, the petitioner no.1 filed an application dated 3/05/2010 purporting it to be an application under Section 156(3) of the Code (Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) before the learned JMFC, Panaji. That application came to be disposed of by the learned JMFC by order dated 28/05/2010, after 3 notice to the respondents. The petitioner no.1 then filed another application on 4/06/2010 purporting it again to be an application under Section 156(3) of the said Code. That application came to be rejected by the learned Special Judge/Sessions Judge by order dated 17/08/2010 which order has attained finality. By the said order, the learned Sessions Judge rejected the said application, inter alia, observing that it was not the case of the said petitioner that there was no investigation in the matter but rather that the investigation was one sided and intended only to target Shri Parrikar, the then Chief Minister of the State. 6. Not having rested with their failure, the present petitioners filed an application before the learned Special Judge/Sessions Judge against the respondents to initiate contempt proceedings against them under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 contending that vital facts were suppressed by the respondents before the learned Special Judge at the time of deciding the said application under Section 156(3) of the Code. The necessary averments in that regard are contained in para 7 of the said application dated 20/08/2010 (at page 192). The respondents put their appearance through Shri S.R. Rivonkar, who at places has signed as Special Counsel for the CBI and at other places as Special Public 4 Prosecutor appointed for conducting trial of CBI cases. 7. The Petitioners took objection to the said appearance of Shri S.R. Rivonkar and that objection has now been dismissed by learned Special Judge against which the petitioners have filed the present revision. 8. At the time of hearing, the petitioners were given an option to withdraw this revision and to file a comprehensive revision against the order which may be passed by the learned Special Judge on their application dated 20/08/2010 to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondents. The petitioners have chosen not to exercise the said option and the submission made is that the objection could be taken only before Shri Rivonkar appeared and not after the proceedings are complete and any objection raised thereafter would be infructuous. Be that as it may, the main contention of the petitioners now is that the respondents could not have been represented by the said Shri S.R. Rivonkar as the Special Public Prosecutor for CBI, contention which has been rejected. 9. I have no doubt in my mind that the learned Special Judge will decide the application dated 20/08/2010 on its own merits. 5 However, I need note that revisional jurisdiction cannot be invoked as a matter of right. It is matter of discretion of the Court and is to be exercised only in exceptional cases. As observed by the Apex Court in Amar Chand Agarwala V/s. Shanti Bose & Anr. (AIR 1973 SC 799) revisional jurisdiction is to be exercised only in exceptional cases when there is glaring defect in the procedure or there is manifest error on point of law which has resulted in flagrant miscarriage of justice. The petitioners have no direct concern in the investigations of the said case filed by the said Shri Godinho against the said Shri Parrikar. They are trying to intrude in the said investigations. They are, what can be termed as strangers or busy bodies. Till date, they have not filed any complaint against the said core committee members, which could have been filed by them, if they wished. An attempt has been made by Shri Menezes to show that the letter dated 26/04/2010 was a complaint but in my view such a submission cannot at all be accepted. In the absence of any complaint made by the petitioner no.1 or for that matter by other petitioners their attempt to interfere in the investigations can be considered only as an intrusion into the investigations with oblique motives. 10. Petitioners have wasted much judicial time of two Courts 6 below and now of this Court. Revisional jurisdiction can be exercised as only noted, only in case where there is an illegality which has resulted in failure of justice. Such is not the case herein. Petitioners can suffer no loss in case the respondents who are investigating the case are represented by the said Shri Rivonkar. In order dated 21/07/2010 in the case of Somnath Zuvarkar (Application in Election Petition No.2/2010 in Election Petition No.2/2007) this Court had observed as follows: “No doubt, the administration of justice is the sovereign function of the State but the State does incur lot of expenditure of public money for maintenance of Courts, by way of salary of Judges, staff, buildings, stationery, electricity, water, etc. State is run by taxes paid by the citizens. Court time is precious. Use of Court time by one has the effect on the availability of it for use of others. Time taken in this petition could have been utilized to dispose off other cases, as submitted by learned Senior Counsel. True, every citizen has right to use Court's time but not to waste or misuse it. Those who waste or misuse must pay for it. This is one of the causes which delays the disposal of cases. In Ramesh Bodhraj Nagpal and another v. Smt. Prakashkumar Sardar Deelipsingh and another(2009(4) ALL MR 370) this Court has stated that: “In my view, time has now come to consider status of another party eligible to costs. That another party, in my view, prima facie, is the 7 State Government. The availability of the infrastructure and staff to the Courts functioning within the territory of the State is the primary responsibility of the State Government. For discharging this primary responsibility, State has to carve out some funds, probably which could be utilised for development activities in the larger public interest. Therefore, in an appropriate case, costs considering the facts and circumstances and time taken by the litigation may be imposed, payable to the State Government”.” 11. Since the petitioners have no direct interest in the investigations which are going on and are trying to interfere with oblique motives and as the impugned order has caused no injustice to the petitioners, I am not inclined to entertain this revision. Revision petition is therefore dismissed in limine with costs of Rs.5,000/- to be paid by the petitioners. The costs should be paid within the period of fifteen days. Costs be credited to the account of the State Government. N.A. BRITTO, J. NH/-