( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 376 OF 2009 Pradeep s/o Wamanrao Patre PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT ..... Mr. R.S. Deshmukh, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.S. Patil, APP for the respondent/State. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 6th August, 2009] PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner is a senior police officer of the rank of the Superintendent of Police. He was member of the State Vigilance Squad constituted for elimination and prevention of adulteration in petroleum products. He was authorized to carry out investigation at the outlets of petroleum products and like establishments throughout the State in order to locate whether the petroleum products are sold as per the standard prescribed or that ( 2 ) there was sale of adulterated petroleum products. According to him, he detected that there was a carton of kerosene license holders which defrauded the public exchequer and people at large. He had submitted a report to the Collector, Dhule for appropriate action in the matter. He allegedly conducted various raids to detect the fraud and adulteration in the business of petroleum products including business about distribution of L.P.G., kerosene, petrol, diesel, etc. He asserts that he left his headquarters at Pune on 21st July, 2005 with a view to conduct raids at various places. He alleges that during course of raid conducted on 23rd July, 2005, the Superintendent of Police was informed about non-cooperation of the local police. He further alleges that he was assaulted by one Vinod Morankar and there was a ugly scene. He has been allegedly framed in a false case at the instance of said Vinod Morankar and that the local police also acted against him. It was alleged that he demanded bribe of Rs. ten (10) lacs. All the allegations were without foundation. 3. The petitioner filed criminal writ petition No. ( 3 ) 655/2005 challenging the action of the police machinery. He urged that crime shall be registered against said Vinod Morankar and others named in that petition. This Court gave him liberty to file suitable discharge application before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhule which came to be rejected. The petitioner thereafter preferred revision application under section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code, vide criminal revision application No. 117/2008 which came to be dismissed. Consequently, he filed this petition seeking discharge from the criminal case instituted by the respondent/State. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State and on consideration of the relevant submissions, it is amply clear that now the petitioner is seeking the relief of discharge on the basis of certain documents which are filed by him alongwith affidavit-in-rejoinder to the reply of the State. The relevant documents (Annexure P-1 to P-3) prima facie indicate that the petitioner was authorized to conduct the raids, even on oral permission obtained ( 4 ) telephonically. It prima facie appears that there was no written authorisation to conduct raid on any occasion. These documents which are submitted in this petition were not filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate when the discharge application was pressed into service. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate observed that permission was not sought by the petitioner to leave the headquarters for his intended work to carry out raids in the relevant period. The information obtained by the petitioner under the provisions of the Right to Information Act would prima facie indicate that refusal of permission to leave headquarters was not communicated to him and that he, indeed, had sought such permission. These documents were not brought to the notice of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. Considering these aspects, it would be appropriate to grant leave to the petitioner to move the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhule, afresh for the relief of discharge as claimed by him on the basis of the information contained in the documents which are produced in this petition. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to file the copies of the said documents and ( 5 ) file afresh application for discharge before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhule. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the liberty as mentioned above, in as much as no opinion on merits is being expressed at this juncture. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate to decide such application expeditiously within a period of eight (8) weeks after its filing, on its own merits without being influenced by any of the observations made in this order. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/CRIWP376-09