VISHAKHA VILAS PEDNEKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition, it is prayed that the FIR registered against the Petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 7, 8, 13(1)(d) read with 13(3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 be quashed. The only argument canvassed before us is that no Court can take cognizance in respect of the said offence in absence of sanction under Section 19 of the Act of 1988. Significantly, the Petitioner filed application before the lower Court raising this very contention by way of Exhibit-3 in ACB Special Case No.123 of 2009. That contention has been rejected by the trial Court, relying on the exposition of the Apex Court in the case of P.V.Narsimha Rao Vs. State (CBI/ SPE) reported in 1998 (4) SCC 626 in particular paragraph Nos.95 to 98 of the said decision, vide judgment and order dated 19th July, 2010. That decision of the trial Court has not been challenged and in fact has been allowed to attain finality. Instead, the present petition for quashing of the FIR is filed, raising the same contention. We see no infirmity in the view taken by the trial Court in rejecting the argument of the Petitioner that the prosecution against the Petitioner cannot proceed.

(2.) THE argument of the Petitioner that, if there is no appointing authority for the Petitioner being a corporator of the Corporation, it is the duty of the Respondents to take steps to create appointing authority. This argument is canvassed on the basis of the observations made by the Apex Court in paragraph No.96 of the reported decision. The reported decision pressed into service is not an authority on the proposition that so long as appointing authority is not created with regard to corporators no prosecution can be launched against them under the provision of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In view of the wide definition of Public Servant under Section 2(c)(viii), the corporator of the Corporation is a public servant; and can therefore, be proceeded under the said enactment. Suffice it to observe that this contention cannot be the basis to quash the FIR. No other argument is canvassed before us. In the circumstances, petition is dismissed.