Dismissed

Sunil Gavali v. Chandrakant Ghodke and Ors.

Bombay HC20 Aug 2014WP/4076/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged the invocation of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, seeking an inquiry for false implication and compensation. The High Court dismissed the petition, ruling that mere acquittal in other cases does not establish malice in the MCOC proceedings absent a specific finding by the MCOC Court.

What did the court decide?

The petition was dismissed. The High Court refused to issue directions for an inquiry or award compensation.

Sunil Gavali Vs Chandrakant Ghodke and Ors. — Corruption | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

8-wp-4076-2013

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.4076 OF 2013

¶4

Sunil Gavali...Petitioner

¶5

vs.

¶6

Chandrakant Ghodke and Ors....Respondents

¶7

Mr. Shekhar Jagtap i/b.Shekhar and Co., for
the Petitioner.

¶8

Mrs. P.H. Kantharia, APP for the State.

¶9

CORAM :V.M. KANADE &
 P.D. KODE JJ.

¶10

DATE :AUGUST 20, 2014

¶11

P.C:

¶12

1.Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf

¶13

of the petitioner. By this petition, filed under

¶14

Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the

¶15

petitioner is seeking appropriate writ, order and

¶16

direction directing the Inspector General of

¶17

Police to hold an inquiry against respondent
Nos.1 to 5 for falsely implicating the petitioner

1/5

Vishal Parekar

8-wp-4076-2013

in MCOC case and also in other cases. He is also
seeking compensation of Rs.10 lacs and other
consequential reliefs.

¶22

2.Brief facts of the case are that the

¶23

petitioner was arrested and thereafter 11 other
cases were registered against him. Thereafter,
sanction order was obtained from the competent
authority under Section 23(2) of the Maharashtra
Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 and
proceeding under MCOC Act initiated against him.
The petitioner has filed an application for
discharge by sending a letter to the learned
Special Court through jail, which was treated as
discharge application. The learned special Court
was pleased to discharge the applicant/petitioner
from the provisions of MCOC Act. However, he was

¶24

not discharged from other cases which were
slapped against him.

2/5

Vishal Parekar

8-wp-4076-2013

3.The learned counsel appearing on behalf

¶29

of the petitioner submits that MCOC authority had

¶30

committed a patent error in invoking the
provisions of MCOC Act against the petitioner
when on the date on which the petitioner was
arrested, there were no other pending cases
against him and as such provisions of Section 3
of MCOC Act could not have been invoked against
him.

¶31

4.It is submitted that therefore action of

¶32

invoking the provisions of MCOC Act against the
petitioner is malicious and he is liable to get
compensation and further it is submitted that
directions be given to the Inspector General of
Police to hold an inquiry against the respondents
who are responsible for invoking the provisions

¶33

of MCOC Act against the petitioner. It is
submitted that in all other offences, later on,
petitioner was acquitted by the competent Court.

3/5

Vishal Parekar

8-wp-4076-2013

It is submitted that when the petitioner was in

¶38

jail, he was shown to have committed the
offences. It is therefore, submitted that relief
as claimed by the petitioner may be granted.

¶39

submission is without any substance. It is not

¶40

in dispute that MCOC Court partly allowed the
application of the petitioner but while allowing

¶41

the application, MCOC Court has not observed that
the said charge of MCOC levelled against the
petitioner is malicious. In the absence of such
finding this Court can not go into factual
aspects to consider whether the sanction accorded

¶42

under Section 23(2) of MCOC Act was malicious or
not. Merely because the petitioner acquitted

¶43

from other cases which were filed against him,

¶44

that does not create a presumption of innocence

¶45

in favour of the petitioner. At the highest it

¶46

can be said that prosecution has failed to

4/5

Vishal Parekar

8-wp-4076-2013

discharge its burden of establishing the guilt of
the accused.

¶51

6.Under these circumstances, therefore, it

¶52

will not be possible to issue the directions
which are sought by the petitioner in this
petition. Petition is, therefore dismissed.

¶53

5/5

¶54

Vishal Parekar

Sunil Gavali v. Chandrakant Ghodke and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Gavali v. Chandrakant Ghodke 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

Vijay Shankarrao Ghugare Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Johny Lonapan Kallikadan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Suresh Kacher Vaity Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ashok Dagadu Pawar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Satyanarayan Nandkishor Pande Vs the State of Maharashtra

Chetan Chabildas Shah Vs the State of Maharashtra