Disposed

Narendra Bhaskarrao Patil v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC4 Apr 2018CP/113/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bench disposed of a contempt petition filed against the State for alleged disobedience of an interim order in a writ petition concerning sanction for prosecution in a corruption case. Finding the main issue academic due to Constitutional Court review, the court held the petition lacks efficacy.

What did the court decide?

The contempt petition is disposed of on the ground that it has lost its efficacy.

Narendra Bhaskarrao Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others — Corruption | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

(1)

¶2

113.13cp

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CONTEMPT PETITION NO.113 OF 2014 IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 652 OF 2012

¶5

Narendra Bhaskarrao Patil..PETITIONER

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

The State of Maharashtra & ors

¶8

..RESPONDENTS

¶9

Mr A.R. Syed, Advocate h/f Mr S.P. Brahme, Advocate
for petitioner;

¶10

Mr S.W. Munde, A.P.P. for respondent/State

¶11

CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE &
 SMT. VIBHA V. KANKANWADI,JJ.
 DATE : 4th APRIL, 2018

¶12

ORAL ORDER :

¶13

The petitioner was before this Court

¶14

alleging that there is a wilful disobedience of the

¶15

order of this Court dated 14th March, 2013 by the

¶16

respondents and prayed that they be punished
accordingly.

¶17

2.The petitioner in Criminal Writ Petition

¶18

No. 652 of 2012 raised a grievance that the

¶19

113.13cp

¶20

(2)

¶21

respondent authorities namely respondent Nos. 1 and
2 failed to accord sanction to prosecution of the
accused persons who were involved in Special Case
No Nos. 4 of 2012 and 5 of 2012 pending before
learned Special Judge, Jalgaon. It was submitted
that the proposal was pending before the competent
authority and the State for grant of sanction for
considerable period. The Division Bench of this
Court, by judgment and order dated 14th January,
2013 while making rule absolute issued directions
to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to take decision on the
proposal tendered by the Superintendent of Police,
Jalgon on 1st June, 2012 in respect of according
sanction to prosecute the accused involved in the
crime expeditiously. The respondents were directed
to take decision within stipulated period of eight
weeks from the date of order.

¶22

3.It seems that as the decision was not
taken within stipulated period, the State
approached this Court by filing Criminal
Application No.1911 of 2013 seeking extention of

¶23

(3)

¶24

period. Though request was made for extension of
period of twelve weeks, Division Bench was not
inclined to grant extension of twelve weeks but
extension of two weeks only was granted to the
State to comply the directions of this Court dated

¶25

14thJanuary, 2013. The application was

¶26

accordingly disposed of.

¶27

4.Learned Counsel appearing for the

¶28

petitioner fairly submitted that there were certain
developments took place during pendency of the
petition. It was submitted that the accused Mr.
Suresh Jain, by way of Criminal writ Petition No.
1033 of 2013 approached this Court. Two reliefs
were claimed in the petition viz. (i) the challenge
to the order passed by learned Special Judge dated

¶29

20thMay, 2014 and (ii) for quashing the

¶30

proceedings of special case itself.

¶31

5.The Special Judge, Dhule holding that

¶32

there is no need for sanction was subject matter of
challenge in the petition. It was the contention

¶33

113.13cp (4)

¶34

of the petitioner that the sanction under Section

¶35

197(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was

¶36

necessary, as there was lodgment of report

¶37

attracting the provisions of Prevention of
Corruption Act against the petitioner along with
other offences namely under Sections 120-B, 406,

¶38

409, 411, 420, 465, 468, 471, 109 and 34 of the
Indian Penal Code. The Division Bench of this
Court, in its detailed judgment considering rival

¶39

submissions of learned Counsel appearing for the
respective parties, found no merit in the petition.
In clear and unambiguous words, it was observed by
the Division Bench thus: in the light of discussion
in foregoing paragraphs, the case of the petitioner

¶40

that, for taking cognizance of the aforesaid
offences against him, sanction ought to have been
obtained, has no merit.

¶41

6.The petitioner prayed for continuation of
the interim order. The Division Bench found no
favour in that prayer also and observed that if
interim relief is permitted to continue, it would

¶42

113.13cp (5)

¶43

be an impediment in speedy trial. The Division
Bench declined the prayer for continuation of
interim relief. Thus, what remains in the petition
is now only of an academic discussion.

¶44

7.Learned Counsel submitted that he is not
aware whether the order passed by the Division
Bench dated 10th October, 2014 in Writ Petition
No.1033 of 2013 is the subject matter before the
Hon'ble Apex Court. In our opinion, this cannot be
an impediment and for this ground, it is not
necessary to keep contempt petition now pending in
this Court. The contempt petition has lost its
efficacy and is disposed of accordingly.

¶45

(SMT. VIBHA V. KANKANWADI) (PRASANNA B. VARALE) JUDGE JUDGE

¶46

Tupe

Narendra Bhaskarrao Patil v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narendra Bhaskarrao Patil v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ambarishi S/O. Shripadrao Patil (C-4679) Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Dr. Nilesh S/O. Hiralal Jaiswal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shaikh Ashpak S/O. Shaikh Hassan (C-8138) Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Radhakishan Gulabchand Mundada Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Janardhan Baban Bhopi (C-10374) Vs the State of Maharashtra

Khandu Jivraj Bhange (C-9568) Vs the State of Maharashtra