ABDUL HAKIM S/O ABDUL RAHIM Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH P S O AHERI POLICE STATION DISTT GADCHIROLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application, the applicants have prayed for quashing of F.I.R. No.3009 of 2011, dt.8.11.2011 reported to Police Station, Aheri, District Gadchiroli u/s.13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 r/w. Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) It is the contention of the applicants that he is a recipient of "Adivasi Sevak Puraskar" and Secretary/Member of Van Vaibhav Shikshan Mandal, while his wife/applicant no.2 was a Nurse serving from December, 1962 to January, 1977 at Public Health Centre in erstwhile Chandrapur and now Gadchiroli District. She had resigned due to domestic compulsions. It is submitted that poor children of the applicants are also happy and well placed in their respective occupations. According to the applicants, an offence punishable u/s. 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act can be registered only on account of criminal misconduct by a public servant, but none of the applicants is a public servant. Furthermore, there is no reference as to why Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code is invoked against the applicants. It is, therefore, submitted that continuance of proceedings against the applicants is nothing but abuse of process of law and therefore, inherent powers be used to quash the F.I.R. No.3009 of 2011, dt.8.11.2011 lodged at Police Station, Aheri, District Gadchiroli.

(3.) Mr.F.T.Mirza, Adv. for the applicants placed reliance on the ruling in the case of Ashok Tshering Bhutia vs. State of Sikkim, 2011 4 SCC 402. In the said case, the Apex Court held that the unexplained income of the appellant therein was merely a paltry sum which any government employee could save every year. According to the Apex Court, the High Court erred in not placing reliance on the evidence contained in the document therein i.e. Exh.D-4. Finding of High Court that the appellant was in possession of assets amounting to Rs.18.25 crores for which he could not account for was found erroneous and hence, the impugned judgment was held to be unsustainable and the appellant was acquitted.