SHASHIKANT WAMAN KOCHIKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these revision applications are arising out of same order dated 20-12-1991 passed by the Special Judge, Greater Bombay rejecting the prayer and request of the accused applicant for discharge in Special Case No. 9 of 1987 and holding that the charges levelled against them cannot be said to be groundless.

(2.) I heard Mr. Girish Kulkarni and Mr. Hudlikar for the applicants and Mr. Borulkar for the State. All the accused applicants were charge-sheeted at the instance of A. C. B. F. S. I. Cell Bombay under sections 120b, 109, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471, 477 A. , 417, 420 and 420 r. w. 511 of the I. P. C. and section 5 (1) (d) r/w section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 1947. The charge-sheet is a outcome of the investigation in C. R. No. 12 of 1984, A. C. B. F. S. I. Cell Bombay. Accused No. 1 Shri. P. D. Hawal was at relevant time working as Superintendent, City Survey and Land Records. Accused No. 2 Ananta Landage was working as Record Keeper, Accused No. 3 Vijay Babu Raut was working as Revenue Inspector in City Survey and Land Records. Bombay. Accused No. 2 and 3 were working under accused No. 1. Accused No. 4 Jayantilal Lalchand Shah and accused No. 5 Chandrakant Mulchand Shah are builders. Accused No. 6 R. B. Gudal was architect and accused No. 7 was working as Sub Engineer building proposal in Bombay Municipal Corporation and accused No. 8 was Executive Engineer, Building Proposal in Bombay Municipal Corporation.

(3.) IT appears from the order of the learned Special Judge that the accused Nos. 2 ,3 and 4 filed their applications for discharge and the rest of the accused supported that applications and also claimed discharge. Ld. Special P. P. filed his reply to the applications of the accused. It appears that the Ld. Counsel for the accused raised as many grounds as were available to them for claiming discharge. It also appears that they took the Special Judge through each and every page and document of the chargesheet on which the prosecution had relied upon. It also appears that the discharge applications were argued as if the accused wanted the learned Special Judge to consider each and every angle and prospect of the prosecution case and the defence and not only for the discharge of the accused but also giving the clean chit regarding their non involvement in any of the offences and acquittal from the case. It also appears from the record that the accused tried to not only to scan the evidence but also required the learned Special Judge to go thoroughly, minutely, in detail and at length with each and every allegation of the prosecution and each and every document in support.