Bombay HC to pronounce judgement on Thursday in State’s and Anil Deshmukh’s quashing petitions – Times of India

MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court bench of Justices S S Shinde and N J Jamadar will pronounce at 2.30 pm on July 22 its judgments in two quashing petitions against the FIR registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on April 21 against former state home minister Anil Deshmukh.
One plea is filed by the Maharashtra government seeking directions to set aside two “unnumbered paragraphs” from the corruption case which it says leads to a “roving enquiry’’ against the administration of state by the Central agency, the other is by Deshmukh to quash the allegedly “baseless’’ and “vague” FIR against him.
On April 5, HC bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Girish Kulkarni had directed a Preliminary Enquiry (PE) into a complaint made by lawyer Jaishri Patil to Malabar Hill police station, which referred to former Mumbai Police Commissioner Param Bir Singh’s March 20 letter—written three days after his transfer to the Home Guards– to the chief minister Uddhav Thackeray accusing Deshmukh and others of “corrupt malpractices.’’
Singh alleged that Deshmukh had asked API Sachin Vaze to collect Rs 100 crore collectively every month from the almost 2000 bars and restaurants in Mumbai.
The order also said that the CBI could after the PE take further action in “accordance with the law.” Deshmukh, then a cabinet minister (Home), had stepped down soon after the April 5 order.
The Supreme Court had dismissed petitions filed by the state and Deshmukh against the HC order.
The CBI after its PE registered the first information report (FIR) on April 21 against Deshmukh and “unknown others’’ under section 7 (illegal gratification by a public servant in an official act) of PCA and section 120B (criminal conspiracy) of Indian Penal Code (IPC).
State approached the HC on April 30 and Deshmukh, on May 3 against the FIR.
The two paras which the Thackeray-led Maharashtra government wants gone refer to Sachin Vaze’s reinstatement after 15 years as assistant police inspector last year, him being assigned most of the ‘sensational cases’, and alleged ‘exercise of undue influence’ over transfers and postings and hence, over performance of police officers’ duties.
For State, senior counsel Rafique Dada and advocate Akshay Shinde for the State said the CBI in breaching the mandate given by the HC by ‘cutting and pasting’ a para straight out of Singh’s PIL and relying on pleadings in a petition by advocate Ghanshyam Upadhyay for a probe against Deshmukh which was never the mandate.
Solicitor general of India Tushar Mehta for CBI concluded his submission to seek dismissal of State’s petition. He, as well as advocate Subhash Jha for Upadhaya, said there is a mandate given by the HC and the state cannot now allow such a mandate to be defeated.
The state said despite the Shukla report being closed as mentioned by Advocate General before the Chief Justice’s bench, the state probing how it “leaked’’ CBI wants to “mutilate’’ its probe.
Mehta said the difference is State is looking at the “leak” while CBI, “its contents.’’
In May, the CBI before the HC made a statement that it would not act on letters it had sent to state seeking documents including a phone-tap report by Commissioner (Intelligence) Rashmi Shukla, alleging undue political interference in postings and transfers of officers. It continued its statement for the duration of the hearing of the State’s petition till pronouncement of judgment.
In Deshmukh’s plea, senior counsel Amit Desai, representing him, said prior sanction was essential under provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act based on the details mentioned in the FIR itself and consent was also needed.
The CBI counsel, additional solicitor general Aman Lekhi said Deshmukh’s conduct was not part of his official duty as he is alleged to have asked Waze to collect money from restaurants and bars and that no prior sanction was needed from State nor was any consent required for CBI probe nor was any sanction required.