MAUVIN GODINHO Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. By consent of the parties, taken up for hearing forthwith. Learned Advocate General waives service for the State/respondent.

(2.) BY this petition, (originally filed as Criminal Revision Application), the petitioner seeks quashing and setting aside of the order dated 18-4-2001 of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Panaji permitting the respondent to re-investigate the case being Crime No. 106/98, registered against the petitioner and another for the offences under sections 177, 182, 403, 409, 463 read with section 34 of the I. P. C. and sections 7, 9, 10, 11, 13 and 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The said order has been passed on the application dated 16-4-2001 of the Addl. S. P. CID/crime Branch, Panaji. By the said application, the Investigating Officer requested the Court to reopen the case for the purpose of re-investigation on the ground that the earlier closure report was submitted on the mistaken interpretation/assumption of the validity of the Notification dated 1-8-1996 which the complainant had claimed to be illegal in the FIR filed by him. The learned Magistrate being of the view that fresh material was placed before him for consideration for re-opening the case, accepted the submission of the Investing Officer and passed the said order on 18-4-2001 reopening the case for further investigation. The said order of the learned JMFC, Panaji Goa dated 18-4-2001 is impugned by the petitioner, inter alia, on the following grounds :

(3.) SHRI Lotlikar, the learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has vehemently argued that the order of the learned JMFC dated 18-4-2001, is illegal as no new material was brought on record justifying re-opening of the case and that the so called new material was available to the police even prior to the filing of the first application dated 3-4-2001. It is further contended that from the application of the Investigating Officer dated 16-4-2001, it was abundantly clear that the police are seeking to re-investigate the case solely at the behest of the Government, more specifically at the behest of the complainant, the present Chief Minister of the State, who at the relevant time was a M. L. A. , sitting in the opposition. That since the matter is sought to be once again raked up at his instance, it is clear that the matter is being pursued out of political vendetta.