SEEMA DHAMDHERE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) These two appeals are inter-connected in the sense that they have their matrix in connected matters. In the appeal relating to SLP No. 12279/2006 challenge is to the order in writ petition 482 of 2003 while in the appeal relating to SLP (Crl.) No. 5498/2006 challenge is to the order in Crl. Writ petition No. 1048 of 2006. As noted above, the writ petitions are linked in the sense that a writ petition was filed by two practicing advocates alleging on the basis of some newspaper report that there was large SCALE malpractice in the examination conducted by the Maharashtra Public Service Commission (in short the "Commission"). ACB C.R. No. 33/2002 was registered and one S.B. Pujari was initially investigating into the allegations. The writ petitioners alleged that said investigating officer had collected material and process of arresting one Smt. Sayalee Joshi and others and to pre-empt such acts he was transferred on 31.1.2003. From time to time 22 accused persons were arrested. An affidavit was filed by the then Director General on 12.5.2006 indicating that investigation in the said crime No. 33/2002 had come to an end. Shri Pujari had filed affidavit that the investigation was not yet complete. He had been transferred by a general transfer order dated 6.9.2006. Shri Anil P. Dhere filed an affidavit indicating that the investigation is complete. Shri S.B. Pujari requested that more time was required to be granted to him to respond the affidavit of Shri Anil P. Dhere. But the High Court did not consider that to be necessary. The High Court was of the view that if the Special Court before which the matter was pending issued necessary directions, even after conclusion of the investigation if any, further materials can be collected against any accused persons can be brought on record. The stand of the Commission was that subsequently there was another case registered i.e. ACB 7/2006. Prayer was to quash the said proceedings and to continue investigation in ACB 33/2002. The High Court felt that the same shall be considered on merits uninfluenced by orders passed in Writ Petition No. 482/03. The High Court observed that there was different perception of investigation between Shri Anil P. Dhere and Shri S.B. Pujari. The High Court accordingly disposed of the writ petition. The High Court felt since Shri S.B. Pujari had put in three years in investigating the State Government would be objective and would not take any adverse view of the stand taken by Shri Pujari. It was clarified that affidavit of Shri S.B. Pujari was not to be used in any other proceedings.

(3.) In the connected matter the prayer was to quash the first information report No. 7 of 2006 on the ground that crime No. 33/2002 was pending and there was overlapping. The High Court felt that the two were conceptually different. It was directed that the investigation shall be conducted fairly under the supervision of Shri G.D. Virk, the Director General of Police, Bombay and the Commission should cooperate in the investigation. The Director General was directed to submit progress report periodically.