1 Cri.Revn.Appln.4 of 2011 hvn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 4 OF 2011 Shirish Yadav ... Applicant Versus State of Maharashtra ... Respondents Mr. Rajeev Patil along with Mr. Onkar Warange i/by Mr. Dushyant Purekar, Advocate for the applicant. Mrs. R.V. Newton, A.P.P. for State. CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL,J. DATED : SEPTEMBER 12, 2011 P.C. Heard. 2. In Special case No. 33 of 2009 below Exh. 18 the applicant (Accused no.6) sought discharge. Rejection thereof by order dated 24.11.2010 has been questioned by the applicant in the present revision application. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant submits barring signature on the letter dated 6.12.2004 no major role could be attributed against the accused applicant, that too inviting infraction of section 420, 467, 468, 2 Cri.Revn.Appln.4 of 2011 471, 120B, 201 and 465 IPC. 4. The learned counsel extensively read different correspondence and also letter dated 31.7.2004 issued by one Shri. Kumawat, earlier incumbent in the position. He also submits the applicant has faced disciplinary proceedings, a PIL was filed wherein no major role was attributed to the applicant. He was suspended for certain duration and thereafter he joined. The applicant was not the authority taking decision in respect of grant of transfer of development rights (hereinafter referred to as TDR). The learned counsel has also invited my attention to the scheme and hierarchy under which such rights or such procedure was adhered for Organisational structure for TDR. 5. At this stage of the matter, taking recourse to section 397 or 401 of Cr.P.C. there could not be and should not be roving criticism l as to the worth of statement or value of the letter written by the applicant. In the grounds, the applicant accepts that he is signatory of the letter with two other accused in the said C.R. No. 579 of 2005. 6. It would be matter of appreciation as to what was the mind set of the accused applicant at the time of putting signature on the letter. Considering the position, he was holding it cannot be said that he 3 Cri.Revn.Appln.4 of 2011 simply signed on the dotted line. The letter was to be considered as foundation by his superiors for releasing the TDR concession. It was a chain of network in the Corporation from lower rank of the Municipal employees to few outsiders. The net work was unearthed on the investigation and accused applicant is put in mesh. Considering the primary evidence available against the accused applicant, at this stage, its credentials need not be dissected holding that there was no case against the applicant. Applicant lacks merit. Dismissed. (K.U. CHANDIWAL,J.)