skt/- 1 18.wp.1828.09.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1828 OF 2009 Anil Anant Karkhanis ... Petitioner (Ori.Complainant) Vs. Shrikant Laxman Kakade & Ors. ... Respondents ...... Mr.Ambar Joshi for the petitioner. Ms.M.H.Mhatre, APP for respondent no.3-State. ...... CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATE : 21st JULY, 2010. P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner is the original complainant. According to him, he has executed a Power of Attorney in favour of his elder brother-Subhash, who was accused no.1 in the complaint. On the basis of that Power of Attorney, he represented the petitioner in the land acquisition proceedings. According to the petitioner, the compensation was paid by issuing a demand draft in the name of accused no.1 and certain payment of rent component of the compensation was paid in cash to accused no.1. Thus, according to him, accused no.2, who was Special Land Acquisition Officer and accused no.3 who was the Deputy Engineer in the Minor Irrigation Department have committed the office. The complaint was filed for the offences punishable under Sections skt/- 2 18.wp.1828.09.sxw 409, 420, 120B r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate directed investigation under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The police submitted a report that no criminal case was made out and that it was purely the civil matter. Two witness were examined by the C.J.M. and thereafter, the C.J.M. issued the process. 2 That order was challenged by accused no.1 by filing revision application. That revision application was allowed and the process against him was quashed. The learned counsel informs that the order has been challenged by the petitioner by filing a writ petition, which is admitted. 3 Accused nos.2 & 3 filed revision application No.74 of 2007. The Sessions Court allowed the petition on several grounds. One of the ground was that these two accused had committed the alleged offence, if any, in the discharge of their official duty and as they cannot be removed from service except by or under the order of the Government, they cannot be prosecuted for the offences without prior sanction of the Government under Section 197(1) of the Cr.P.C. Accused no.2 is the Deputy Collector and accused no.3 is the Deputy Engineer. Both cannot be removed from service except by or by order of the Government and therefore, Section 197(1) is applicable to them. skt/- 3 18.wp.1828.09.sxw 3 In view of this legal position, I find no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order passed by the Sessions Court. 4 For the aforesaid reasons, the above petition stands dismissed. [ J.H. BHATIA, J.]