Subhashchandra Anand Verma v. The State Of Maharashtra

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 271 OF 2020 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 815 OF 2016 Subhashchandra Anand Verma ...Applicant/Appellant

Versus

The State Of Maharashtra & Ors.

...Respondents

....

Mr. Maitreya G. Shukla, Advocate for the Applicant/Appellant Mr. H. S. Venegavkar, Special P. P. for Respondent No.2 - UOI. None for Respondent No.3.

Mr. Arfan Sait, APP for the Respondent - State.

CORAM

:

PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.

DATE :

21st APRIL, 2022.

PER COURT :

1.

The applicant seeks following prayers :- "a) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No.1 to release the Original documents being registered Sale Agreement at Exhibit - 240 and Kisan Vikas Patra Exhibit - 49 in Evidence of and comply with the Judgment/order of the Hon'ble Sessions Court dated 25th October, 2016 and subsequent order of this Hon'

ble Court dated 6th October, 2018, in a given time. b) This Hon'ble Court may further direct the Registry of the Hon'ble Sessions Court to release the cash bail amount of Rs.10,000/- deposited by the Applicant at the beginning of the trial in CBI Special Case No.6 of 2006.

c) This Hon'ble Court may further impose such terms and conditions as this Hon'

ble Court deems fit and proper if any till the appeal is disposed of;

d) Any other just and equitable relief as the Hon'ble Court thinks fit and proper"

by SAJAKALI LIYAKAT JAMADAR Date:

2022.04.27 11:05:09 +0530 SAJAKALI LIYAKAT JAMADAR

2.

The applicant was convicted for the offences under Section 13(1)(e) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.14,00,000/-. If fine amount of Rs.14,00,000/- is recovered, there shall be no need to recover the remaining amount of disproportionate asset i.e. Rs.13,85,043/-. If the fine is not paid then that amount may be recovered from the assets of accused No.1. The seized amount of Rs.46,86,750/- is directed to be confiscated to the State after the appeal period. Accused Nos. 2 & 3 were acquitted. The documents seized from the accused were directed to be returned to them after the appeal period. 3.

The judgment and order dated 25th October, 2016, convicting the applicant has been challenged before this Court in Criminal Appeal No.815 of 2016. The appeal is admitted. The substantive sentence of imprisonment has been suspended. 4.

The applicant preferred Criminal Application No.596 of 2017 before this Court. By order dated 6th October, 2018 passed by this Court it was directed that the respondent/CBI to comply the directions of the trial Court found in Clause (8) of the order dated 25th October, 2016 passed in CBI Special Case No.6 of 2006.

5.

According to applicant, pursuant to above order, the applicant have exchanged correspondence with Respondent No.1. However, the order is not complied.

6.

Learned Advocate Mr. Venegavkar submits that, since the applicant has preferred an appeal challenging the judgment of conviction, the documents claimed by the applicant forms part of record and proceedings which are pending before this Court and the applicant may approach the registry for collecting the said documents.

7.

In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the applicant is permitted to approach the registry for documents in compliance of order dated 6th October, 2018. In the event, the applicant prefers such application before the registry, the documents stipulated in Clause(8) of the operative part of judgment and order dated 25th October, 2016 passed in CBI Special Case No.6 of 2006 be returned to the applicant.

8.

Registry is requested to retain the photo copies of the said documents.

9.

Interim Application No. 271 of 2020 is disposed of accordingly.

(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)