Dismissed

Pramod Raoji Doshi v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC18 Jul 2008REVN/198/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal revision application challenged the Special Judge's order rejecting a discharge application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. The High Court found the trial court's reasons for concluding a prima facie case were well-reasoned and upheld the rejection.

What did the court decide?

The revision application was dismissed; the impugned order rejecting the discharge application is upheld.

Pramod Raoji Doshi Vs the State of Maharashtra — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2008)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

APPELLATE SIDE

¶4

Criminal Revision Application No.198 of 2006

¶5

Shri Pramod Raoji Doshi

Applicant

Vs.

State of Maharashtra

Respondent

Mr.Girish Kulkarni for applicant.

¶11

Mr.J.P.Yagnik, APP for State.

¶12

CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE, J.

¶13

Reserved on : June 26, 2008.

¶14

Pronounced on : July 18, 2008.

¶15

JUDGMENT :

¶16

The revision applicant is one of the accused (accused no.9) in ACB Special Case No.42 of 1991 which is presently pending for trial in the Court of Special Judge (under the Prevention of Corruption Act) for Greater Mumbai. He had submitted an application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. for discharge and the said application came to be registered as Misc. Application No.124 of 2004 and it was rejected by the learned Special Judge on

¶17

¶18

17/10/2005. This revision application is directed against the said order rejecting Misc. Application No.124 of 2004. 2. It was submitted by Mr.Girish Kulkarni, the learned counsel for the applicant that there was no case, even prima facie, made out against the applicant (original accused no.9) worth his trial in ACB Special Case No.42 of 1991 and, therefore, his application for discharge ought to have been allowed by the trial Court. It was submitted that on 5/5/1982 an application for measurement of CTS No.E-105, Bandra was submitted by Shri Omprakash Kukreja on behalf of Smt. Nalini Bhole and consequently on 28/6/1982 Shri P.T.Pokale, Municipal Surveyor measured the plot and prepared Vaslewar as well as measurement plan. He worked out the plot area as 1670.1 sq.mtrs. as against the original recorded plot area of 1474.9 sq.mtrs. The Vasalewar and measurement plans were checked and signed by Shri A.K. Thakur - Sheristedar. Shri R.S.Kanthe also signed the same on 24/9/1982 and submitted his report to Shri G.D.Pawar, SLR, BSD requesting to issue area correction order certifying that the plot area was 1670.1 sq.mtrs. of CTS No.E-105, Bandra. On

¶19

¶20

18/11/1982	Shri G.D.Paw	ar, SLR, BSD issued the		area
correction	receipt changing	the plot area from		1474.9
sq.mtrs.	to 1670.1	sq.mtrs. and on 20/11/1	982	Shri
P.T.Pokale	made muta	tion entry on the origina	l	PR
card	and the same	was certified by Shri	R.S.	Kanthe.
Mr.Kulkarni	pointed	out that the present	ap	plicant
for the	first time on	2/12/1982 in his capacity	as	an
Architect	of M/s.	Pylon Projects	Cons	ultants
submitted	an application	to CTSO No.III,		BSD,
Santacruz	requesting to	supply a certified copy	of	PR
card	extract of CTS	No.E-105, Bandra. He also		paid
the cop	ying charges on	4/12/1982. It was,	the	refore,
submitted	that the	applicant came into picture		for
the	first time on	2/12/1982 and the employees	of	the
Corporation	had in fac	t completed the final ac	tion	of
effecting	the mutation	entry with increased area		on
20/11/1982.	It was	submitted by Mr.Kulkarni	that	on
these	obtaining circumst	ances, even prima facie		there

¶21

could be no offence for facing trial against the

¶22

applicant in ACB Special Case No.42 of 1991.

¶23

3.		Though t	he applicant sub	mitted the appli	cation
on	2/12/1982	or	13/12/1982,	the f	act	remains	that	the
applica	tion	was	dated	9/11/1982	and	the	corr	ection
slip	was	issued	by Shri	G.D.Pawar,	SLR,	BSD	for	the

¶24

¶25

first	time on	18/11/1982 and,	therefore, t	here	could
be	no basis	for submission of	the application		dated
9/11/1982	as on	that date	and, there	fore,	the
contention	of	Mr.Kulkarni that the	applicant	was	not
associated	with	M/s.Pylon Projects	Consultants	at	any
time	prior to	2/12/1982 cannot be	accepted.	In	fact
Mr.Kulkarni	could	not produce or	point out	any	prima
facie d	ocumentary	evidence to show	that the	a	pplicant

¶26

was not associated as an Architect of M/s.Pylon

¶27

Projects Consultants at any time prior to 2/12/1982.

¶28

In the impugned order it has been clearly

¶29

observed	by t	he le	arned Special Judge that	in		the
application	dated		9/11/1982 and su	bmitted		on
13/12/1982	to	issue	corrigendum for	higher		area,
reference	was made	to	the earlier order p	assed	by	the
ULC	Department	and	the applicant was aware	that		the
total	area of	CTS	E-105, Bandra was	only		1474.9
sq.mtrs.	These	ar	e prima facie findings	recor	ded	by
the	learned Spec	ial	Judge in support of	his		finding
that	there was	a	prima facie case made	out		against
the	applicant to	face	the trial in ACB	Special		Case
No.42	of 1991		and the discharge ap	plication		was,
therefore,	devoid	of	merits. I am	satisfied		that
these	findings re	corded	by the trial Court	are		well

¶30

¶31

reasoned and they cannot be termed as erroneous or

¶32

perverse or illegal.

¶33

Hence this revision must fail and the same is

¶34

hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim order

¶35

passed on 22/1/2007 stands vacated.

Pramod Raoji Doshi v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pramod Raoji Doshi v. the State of Maharashtra

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

The State of Maharashatra and Ors. Vs Shri.Bapu Laxman Kharat

The State of Maharashtra and Ors. Vs Bapu Laxman Kharat

The State of Maharashtra Vs Shri. Prakash Jaisingh Gawade

The State of Maharashtra Vs Pramod Ravaji Doshi

M/S Ishwar Constructions Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs Ashok Chadha and Ors.

Suday Narayan Kargutkar Vs Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and Anr.