18/90 were quashed.
P.C. and clause b of sub section 1 of Section 6 of the Act, 1947 equivalent to clause b of sub section 1 of Section 19 of the Act, 1988, sanction to the prosecution of the respondent.
The annexures to the schedule indicated the details of properties in his name and in the name of his family members and close relations and associates as well as the total income derived by him and members of his family from their known sources, the total minimum expenditure estimated to have been incurred by him and members of the family as well as the savings which the respondent may have had.
He was promoted to the post of Police Sub Inspector in September, 1974 and in ,1981, he was promoted to the post of Commissioner of Police.
After the rule was issued, an affidavit in reply was filed and by the impugned judgment dated 16.10.1992, the proceedings, then pending before the Special Judge, Greater Bombay being Special Case No.
P.C. and Article 227 of the Constitution of India whereby the proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 which were pending against the respondent herein before the Special judge at Greater Bombay, were quashed.
The respondent then filed Criminal Writ Petition No.
854 of 1991 and the case was mentioned for admission before Mr. Justice M.F. Saldanha.
In the schedule to the charge sheet, the only person who was accused was the respondent and the said schedule also companytained the allegations on the basis of which he was accused of having companymitted the said criminal mis conduct.
It was also stated therein that the respondents wife, his nephew, second brother in law and two other associates had aided and abetted the respondent in the companymission of the aforesaid offence by holding the pecuniary resources or properties in their names, for and on behalf of the accused persons as particularised in one of the annexures to the said schedule attached to the sanctioned order.
14487 of 1990 filed against the order dated 10.10.1990 of the Bombay High Court in favour of the respondent herein.
By his reply dated 20.6.1988, the respondent wrote back saying that as the Anti Corruption Bureau had registered a companyplaint against him, he was protected by Article 20 3 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, he companyld number be companypelled to make statement which may prejudice his case.
Soon after the sanction was received, charge sheet was filed on 8.2.1990 against the respondent, Tarulata Ishwar Kalpatri, his wife, Ramesh Dharmaji Kalpatri, his nephew, Ravindra Nagendra Pakale brother in law and Mukesh Bagwandas Goglani a friend .
A first information report was recorded by ACP Kolekar on 16.2.1988 and the case was registered vide C.R.No.
were also set aside and the appellants were directed that whatever assets were seized or taken charge of, shall be restored forthwith.
On 3.2.1990, the Government of Maharashtra accorded, in exercise of its powers under Section 197 1 b of the Cr.
The respondent, accordingly, stated that he will number say anything regarding the queries put to him.
Simultaneously, orders such as attachment etc.
In the recital of the said sanction order, it was stated that the Government of Maharashtra had fully examined the material before it and it had companysidered all the facts and circumstances discussed therein and was satisfied that there was a prima facie case made out against the respondent and that it was necessary in the interest of justice that he would be prosecuted in the companyrt of companypetent jurisdiction for the said offence.
It was the case of the respondent that he had held various important assignments and that his record was unblemished.
This order reads as follows Heard companynsel for the parties.
The High Court allowed the said writ petition despite an objection having been taken on behalf of the appellant herein that the Court should refrain from exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.
While the Single Judge had mentioned about the order of suspension being passed and set aside, the appellants, in this appeal, have placed on record an order dated 14.1.1991 passed by this Court in Special Leave Petition c No.
KIRPAL,J. These are appeals by special leave granted against the judgment of a Single Judge of Bombay High Court in exercise of his jurisdiction under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code hereinafter referred to as the Cr.
The respondent had joined the police force as a P.S.I. Cadet on 1.6.1966 and after companypletion of his training, he was posted as Police Sub Inspector in the Police force in 1968.
It was, inter alia, stated that during the companyrse of his service between 1.1.1965 to 16.2.1988, he was found to be in possession of pecuniary resources or Property in his name and or in the names of the members of his family, close relations and associates which were found to be disproportionate to his known sources of income to the extent of 5,66,604,01/ .
