wp3127.09.sxw 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3127 OF 2009 Ketan K. Tirodkar ....Petitioner. Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Ors. ....Respondents. Mr. Ketan Tirodkar, Petitioner, present in person. Mr. A.S. Gadkari, Special P.P. With Mr. Mandar Goswami for the C.B.I.. Mrs. S.D. Shinde, APP for the State. CORAM : B.H. MARLAPALLE & ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. DATE : 24th June, 2010 P.C.: 1 We have heard Mr. Tirodkar, the Petitioner party in person and Mr. Gadkari, the learned Special P.P. for the C.B.I. 2 This Petition is filed under Section 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying for directions to the CBI to conduct further investigation as envisaged under Section 173 (8) of the Criminal Procedure Code, in FIR A0032 of 2006 registered with the Anti Corruption Bureau, Mumbai on 14th August, 2006 against Mr. Faraz Khan, a resident of Delhi. It appears that the same FIR was registered at the behest of the Petitioner. As per the Petitioner a Criminal Application No. 6572 of 2005 was filed before this wp3127.09.sxw 2 Court by the State of Maharashtra for cancellation of bail granted to the Petitioner by the Special Court under the M.C.O.C. Act and while the Petitioner was in Delhi, the accused Mr. Faraz Khan met him and offered to get him a favourable verdict from this Court but on financial considerations. The Petitioner further contends that the accused kept following him and demanded an amount of Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees thirty lacs only) to obtain a favourable verdict in favour of the Petitioner and even on 19th May, 2006 he landed at Mumbai and called the Petitioner on phone and asked him to pay Rs.30,00,000/-. 3 The C.B.I. has admittedly investigated into the complaint filed by the Petitioner and the charge-sheet has been filed before the Special Judge, CBI for Greater Mumbai on 08/07/2008, for the offences punishable under Sections 416, 419 and 511 of I.P.C., as well as Sections 8 and 9 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 4 The limited grievance of the Petitioner before us is that the C.B.I. was not allowed to record or has decided not to record the statement of the Hon’ble Judge of this Court who decided Criminal Application No.6572 of 2005 on 5th June, 2006 and as per the Petitioner Mr. Faraz Khan had claimed to be an acquaintance of the said Hon’ble Judge. The Petitioner contends that for a fair investigation, the CBI ought to have recorded the statement of the Hon’ble Judge. 5 Criminal Writ Petition No. 2534 of 2009 was filed by the Petitioner and it came to be dismissed by the Division Bench on 17th November, 2009. wp3127.09.sxw 3 The prayer in the said Petition was on the similar lines i.e. the C.B.I. be allowed to record the evidence of the Hon’ble Judge in connection with FIR No. A0032 of 2006 registered on 14th August, 2006. This Court noted the statement made by the learned counsel appearing for the CBI that it had already filed the charge-sheet and did not wish to record the statement of the concerned Judge and there was no question of granting reliefs as prayed for by the Petitioner. Hence the Petition was dismissed. 6 The Petitioner, party in person, reiterated for directions to undertake further investigation under Section 173(8) by the CBI, so as to record the statement of the Hon’ble Judge. In obedience of the order passed by this Court on 14th December, 2009, the Petitioner has filed his detailed affidavit. We have perused the same. He has reiterated in the affidavit that on 2nd May, 2006 he was in his hostel room at IIPA in New Delhi and in the late evening the accused met him. The Petitioner was informed that the accused is the brother in law of Hon’ble Shri Justice Badruddin Ahmad Shaikh, a sitting Judge of the Delhi High Court and through him he was acquainted with the Hon’ble Judge of this Court before whom Criminal Application No. 6572 of 2005 was to come up for hearing on 4th May, 2006. The accused further informed the Petitioner that he could use his contact to get favourable verdict in favour of the Petitioner. It is further stated that on returning from Delhi, he received a telephone call and the accused demanded a sum of Rs.30,00,000/-, if the Petitioner wanted to get the relief in Criminal Application No.6572 of 2005. After this telephone wp3127.09.sxw 4 conversation, he registered verification with the A.C.B. C.B.I. on 10th May, 2006. 7 The law is well settled. Even the affidavit submitted by the Petitioner does not indicate prima facie that the accused was acting on behalf of any Judge of this Court or the Delhi High Court. Hence, the decision taken by the CBI, in our opinion, cannot be questioned having regard to the well established legal principles. There is no case to re-open the C.B.I. decision not to record the statement of the Hon’ble Judge. 8 However, the Special Judge before whom the charge-sheet was submitted is not without the powers to direct further investigation under Section 173(8) of Cr. P .C. if he is so satisfied on the basis of the material available. The order passed by this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 2534 of 2009 has received its finality as the Petitioner has not challenged the same before the Supreme Court. 9 Hence, this Petition fails and the same is hereby rejected. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE, J.)