Back
2025 Supreme(Bom) 661
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
SARANG V. KOTWAL, S.M.MODAK, JJ.
Nazim Mohammed Yusuf Shaikh - Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra - Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO.4853 OF 2024
Decided On : 25-02-2025
Mr.Mahesh Vaswani a/w Ms.Shreya Tiwari i/b. Ms.Dharini
Nagda – Advocates for Petitioners.
Smt.M.H.Mhatre – APP for Respondents – State.
Mr.Patankar (ACP) – ACB Mumbai.
Mr.Nivate (HC) – ACB Mumbai.
The offence under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is complete irrespective of the completion of offences under Sections 7 or 11, allowing prosecution to proceed based on available evidence.
Headnote:
(A) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 12 - Quashing of FIR - Petitioners sought to quash FIR under Section 12 of the PC Act, arguing that the complainant's death rendered the case unprovable and that crucial evidence was missing - Court held that ample evidence exists to prove the case despite the complainant's absence, including witness testimonies and recorded conversations - The offence under Section 12 is complete irrespective of the completion of offences under Sections 7 or 11 - Petition dismissed. (Paras 1, 4, 11, 13, 15)
(B) Evidence - The court emphasized that the prosecution can rely on other witnesses and evidence, including transcripts and recordings, to establish the case against the petitioners. (Paras 11, 12)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners were accused of attempting to bribe a police inspector with Rs.10,000/- during an investigation related to theft allegations. The FIR was filed after the complainant reported the bribe attempt. (Paras 1, 6, 8)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the prosecution had sufficient evidence to proceed with the case, including witness statements and recorded conversations, despite the complainant's death. (Paras 11, 15)
Issues: The main issues were whether the FIR could be quashed due to the complainant's death and the availability of crucial evidence. (Paras 3, 4)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the prosecution could continue based on other available evidence, and the offence under Section 12 does not depend on the completion of offences under Sections 7 or 11. (Paras 13, 15)
Result: Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
1. This is a Petition for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 4th May 2012 registered vide C.R. No.11 of 2012 under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (“PC Act”) at Anti-Corruption Bureau, Mumbai by one Anil Sardal resulting in A.C.B. Special Case No.60 of 2013 pending before the Special Court for A.C.B., Sessions Court at Greater Bombay. The prayer is for quashing of this particular case. The second prayer is, for direction to the trial Court to appoint a competent officer to conduct an enquiry into the missing currency notes amounting to Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) which was seized by the prosecution and sealed in an envelope.
2. Heard learned counsel Mr. Mahesh Vaswani for the Petitioners and learned APP Smt. M.H. Mhatre for the Respondents-State.
3. At the very outset, it must be stated, that the trial has progressed. PW No.1 – Complainant was examined but he has passed away. At present, PW No.2 – Panch is in the witness-box. His evidence is being recorded and he is being cross-examined. At this very late stage, the Petitioners have approached this Court challenging the entire proceedings. Learned counsel for the Petitioners insisted on deciding this Petition inspite of the fact, that the trial has progressed considerably. He made three basic submissions. His first submission is, that since the Complainant has passed away, the F.I.R. cannot be proved and the allegations made by him cannot be proved. The second submission is, that the currency-notes which were seized at the time of raid, were not found when the envelope was opened in the Court when the Panch was under examination. Therefore, he submitted, that the crucial property involved in this case is not before the Court and therefore, the offence cannot be proved. His third submission is, that the offence under Section 12 of the PC Act does not stand on its own unless the ingredients of Section 11 are proved by the prosecution.
4. Learned APP, on the other hand, submitted that there is ample other material in the entire charge-sheet showing the complicity of the Petitioners in the entire offence. The trial has progressed considerably and at this stage, it is not permissible to quash the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. She submitted, that the currency-notes which were seized during the trap, were deposited with the Reserve Bank of India during the demonetization period. She produced a copy of the order passed below Exhibit-1 in A.C.B. Special Case No.60 of 2013 before the Special Judge (under the Prevention of Corruption Act), Greater Mumbai. That copy is taken on record and marked “X” for identification. This order reads thus:-
“In view of the Government Gazette No.2652 dated 08/11/2016 issued by the Government of India and the circular issued by the Hon’ble Principal Judge, Gr. Mumbai, dated 12/11/2016, the consent of parties obtained to deposit the currency notes of Rs.500/- and Rs.1,000/-, these currency notes ceased to be legal tender on account of demonetization. The photocopies of the currency notes seized during the enquiry/investigation be forwarded to Registrar (S) along with the V.P.R. containing currency notes of Rs.10,000/- of denomination of Rs.500/- and Rs.1,000/-.
The photocopies of the currency notes which are already filed in the present charge-sheet will operate as a piece of evidence subject to proving the same as per provision of law.
Sheristedar of the Court to comply with the said order.
| V.P.R.No. | 270/2015 | |
| Notes of denomination | No. of Notes | Value |
| Rs.1,000/- | 1000 X 2 | 2000 |
| Rs.500/- | 500 X 16 | 8000 |
| Rs.100/- | ||
| Rs.50/- | ||
| Total | 10,000/- | |
Date : /12/2016.
(A.D.Tankhiwale)
Special Judge (Under the P.C. Act)
Greater Mumbai.”
The copy of the said order is given to the learned counsel for the Petitioners in the Court today. She submitted, that the ingredients of Section 12 are clearly made out and there is no scope for even arguing that the proceedings can be quashed.
5. In response to these submissions, learned coun
