Partly allowed

The State of Maharashtra v. Ramesh Tukaram Kalokhe

Bombay HC2 Nov 2012APPLN/919/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court in criminal application No. 919 of 2012 weighed an appeal against the acquittal of a Police Sub-Inspector in a corruption case. The Court distinguished a cited Supreme Court precedent regarding appointment sanctions and admitted the state appeal for hearing.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was admitted and the leave to appeal was granted by the Court.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Ramesh Tukaram Kalokhe — Corruption | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

931.appln.919.2012.doc

¶2

dik

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 919 OF 2012

¶5

The State of Maharashtra ..Applicant

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Ramesh Tukaram Kalokhe ..Respondent

¶8

Mr.D.P.Adsule APP for the applicant. Mr.P.G.Sarda for the respondent.

¶9

CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL J.

¶10

DATE : NOVEMBER 2, 2012.

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

Acquittal recorded by the learned Special Judge, Solapur on 28/11/2011 for the offences P/u/s 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is questioned by the State.

¶13

The learned Special Judge has considered two aspects for acquittal; (a) the accused even as P.S.I. could not have released son of the complainant who was necessary to be produced before him; (b) There was no proper sanction.

¶14

Evidence of P.W.4 Dr.Upadhayay, Commissioner of Police, Solapur illustrate that, he was the appointing and removal authority of the accused. The learned counsel for the accused / respondent has placed reliance on the order

¶15

Pg 1 of 3

¶16

931.appln.919.2012.doc

¶17

dated 27.3.2006 in respect of promoting the accused. This order indeed is issued by the Police Commissioner, Solapur. It was promotion order issued as per the Government policy and as per the directions of the Director General of Police. Consequently, it cannot be said that it was only the Director General of Police who was the appointing or removal authority of the accused.

¶18

Learned A.P.P. has placed reliance on the Police Manual particularly Rule 56(2) and 89. These rules provide, the person of the rank of Deputy Inspector General of Police is the appointing authority of P.S.I. In the instant case Dr. Upadhayay’s post as Commissioner of Police was equivalent to that of Deputy Inspector General of Police.

¶19

The evidence in respect of demand and acceptance is available.

¶20

The learned counsel for the accused/respondent has placed reliance on the judgment reported in Ramkrishnan Prajapati Vs. State of U.P. 2000 S.C.C. (Cri) 687 . It was case concerning appointing of Supply Inspector who was promoted to the post from the cadre of Clerk, and the District Magistrate had issued a sanction. The Hon’ble Apex Court interpreted the rules under appointing authority indicated in Rule 5(2) r/w S. 5(1)(d) in Central Civil Services, Control and Appeal ( Rules ).

¶21

Pg 2 of 3

¶22

931.appln.919.2012.doc

¶23

Such eventuality does not emerge in the present

¶24

case. Leave granted.

¶25

Admit the appeal. Call R & P.

¶26

[ K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. ]

¶27

/kukIik dks”Vh

¶28

Pg 3 of 3

The State of Maharashtra v. Ramesh Tukaram Kalokhe

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Maharashtra v. Ramesh Tukaram Kalokhe

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ganesh Sidram Shinde and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Pravin Jambuwant Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ganesh Sidram Shinde and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Chandulal B. Hinduja and Arn Vs Madhu Ramchand Lund and Anr.

Rajendra Kalicharan Verma Vs M/S. Samlalp Steel Corporation and Ors.

Umarpharq Mustafa Khan Vs Farjana Umarpharq Khan Alias Farjana Jalaluddin Kazi and Anr.