Disposed

Dadasaheb Dnyadeo Jagtap and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC11 Jul 2007PIL/173/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay disposed of two PILs and a criminal writ petition concerning a scam at Bhudargad Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha. The court directed the State to complete the investigation within six months, specifically addressing allegations of fictitious loans and the recovery of stolen property.

What did the court decide?

The respondent-State was directed to complete the investigation within six months from the date of the order, with specific attention to fictitious loans and action against receivers of stolen propert

Dadasaheb Dnyadeo Jagtap and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Corruption | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

 -: 1 :-

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

 PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 173 OF 2004

¶5

 D. D. Jagtap & Ors... ..... Petitioners.

¶6

 Versus

¶7

 State of Maharashtra & Ors... ... Respondents.

¶8

 Ms.Kavita Pawar with Mr. S. Kshirsagar
 for the Petitioners.
 Mr.N.P.Deshpande, AGP for the State.

¶9

 -: ALONG WITH :-

¶10

 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶11

 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2043 OF 2006

¶12

 Bastav Jaki Pinto & Ors. ..... Petitioners.

¶13

 Versus

¶14

 State of Maharashtra & Ors... ... Respondents.

¶15

 Mr. Amit Sale for the Petitioners.
 Mr.M.S.Mhambrey, APP, for the State.

¶16

CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. &
SMT.RANJANA DESAI, J.
DATED : 11TH JULY, 2007.
P.C.:

¶17

 In both these petitions the petitioners have

¶18

 -: 2 :-

¶19

 raised a common grievance, wherein they pray that
 Special Investigation Team of senior officers should
 be constituted to investigate in the scam of Bhudargad
 Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Limited, Gargoti, District
 Kolhapur. According to them, various loan
 transactions are fictitious and in fact large number
 of persons are in possession of the stolen property
 but they have not been made accused under Section 411
 of the Indian Penal Code for receiving stolen
 property.

¶20

 2. State in its reply affidavit filed in the Court,
 in paragraphs 4 and 5 have stated as under:-

¶21

 "4. I say that record further reveals that CR
 No.73/2004 of Bhudargad Police Station was
 registered on 3.12.2004. I say that initially,
 the investigation of the said CR was carried on
 by Police Inspector A. R. Patil and looking to
 the seriousness of the offence, said CR vide
 Order No.PMS/22/CID/787/Kolhapur/03 dated
 03.02.2005, passed by the Director General of
 Police for the State of Maharashtra. The case
 was being supervised by Superintendent of Police,

¶22

 Pune, C.I.D., M.S., Pune, till 26.02.2004. After
 that the case was transfer to E.O.W., CID, Pune

¶23

 -: 3 :-

¶24

 on 06.01.2006 and Superintendent of Police,
 E.O.W., Shobha Ohatkar, I.P.S. is supervising

¶25

 the case henceforth. The investigation was
 carried out speedily on a war footing as a result
 of which all the accused were arrested and
 charge-sheet was filed against all of them. I
 say that thereafter, the investigation of the
 said C.R. was carried out by Deputy
 Superintendent of Police Shri Chougule. In the
 said C.R., charge-sheet came to be filed on
 31.07.2006 before the learned Judicial
 Magistrate, First Class, Bhudargad, Dist.
 Kolhapur against 60 accused persons and it was
 numbered as C.C.No.40/2006. I say that in the
 said CR, supplementary charge-sheet came to be
 filed on 18.10.2006 against two accused persons
 which was numbered as CC No. 65/2006.

¶26

 5. I say that record further reveals that CR
 No.73/2004 of Bhudargad Police Station was
 registered on 03.12.2004. I say that initially,
 the investigation of the said CR was carried on
 by Police Inspector A. R. Patil and looking to
 the seriousness of the offence said CR vide Order
 No. PMS/22/CID/787/Kolhapur/03 dated 03.02.2005,
 passed by the Director General of Police for the

¶27

 -: 4 :-

¶28

 State of Maharashtra was transferred to the State
 C.I.D. and the investigation of the said CR is
 being carried out by Police Inspector S. P.
 Bandgar, State CID, Unit Sangli since then. In
 the said CR, the charge-sheet came to be filed on
 17.08.2006 against 23 accused persons before the
 learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class,
 Bhudargad, which is numbered as CC No.45/2006. I
 further submit that in the said CR, supplementary
 charge-sheet came to be filed o 17.10.2006
 against 8 accused persons before the Leaned
 Magistrate, First Class, Bhudargad which is
 numbered as CC No.64/2006."

¶29

 3. It is further stated by the learned Counsel
 appearing for the State that the investigation has not
 been finally concluded and further investigation is
 still pending. He further states that the State
 Authority would do their best to complete the
 investigation expeditiously and ensure that no person
 guilty of an offence is protected and all are brought
 to book in accordance with law.

¶30

 4. In view of the statement made by the learned
 Counsel appearing for the State, no fruitful purpose
 will be served by keeping these two petitions pending

¶31

 -: 5 :-

¶32

 in this Court. Accordingly, we dispose of both the
 petitions with a direction that the respondent - State
 shall abide by its statement and would complete
 investigation within six months from today. The
 averments made in the writ petition, particularly in
 relation to fictitious loans and action against the
 receivers of the stolen property shall be specifically
 looked into by the investigating agency.

¶33

5. Both parties are left to bear their own costs.

¶34

 Sd/-

¶35

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶36

 Sd/-

¶37

SMT.RANJANA DESAI, J.

Dadasaheb Dnyadeo Jagtap and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dadasaheb Dnyadeo Jagtap and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Milind Sakharam Gaikwad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Siddheshwar Mogalappa Kamurthi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Maza Bharat Samajik Sanstha Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ravindra G.Ghadigaonker Vs Sridhar Muttatiyan and Ors.

Babasaheb Ramrao Patil and Ors. Vs the State Election Commission, Mumbai and Ors.

Babasaheb Ramrao Patil and Ors. Vs the State Election Commission, Mumbai and Ors.

Anil H. Lalwani Vs the Executive Engineer- the Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation and Ors.

Atmasantulana Village Pvt. Ltd. Vs Krishnkumar Jugalkishore Kedia and Ors.

Bhikaji Ratnu Jadhav Vs the Slum Rehabilitation Authority and 5 Ors.

Indusind Bank Ltd. and Anr. Vs the Corporate Debt Restructuring Core and / or Corporate Debt Empowered Group and 4 Ors.

The Rose Niwas Co-Operative Housing Society Vs the Brihanmumbai Mahanagar Palika and 5 Ors.

Santosh Pundlik Hargode Vs the Administrator, Cidco and Ors.

R.C.Kotiankar and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mumbai Pune Taxi Tourist Service Centre Vs the Pune Taximens Consumer Co-Operative Society Ltd. and Ors.