Central Bureau Investigation A.C.B. Pune, Through Sub Inspector Of Police CBI, Acb Pune v. Mariyambi Shaikh Kadir And Another

2025:BHC-AUG:11832

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 1008 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLN NO.106 OF 2022 SHIVAJI NIVRUTTI GAWALI AND OTHERS APP for Respondents : Mr.A.M.Pathan CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 104 OF 2022 KANTABAI ANKUSH BHAND & ANOTHER APP for Respondents : Mr.A.M.Pathan CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 103 OF 2022 RAJENDRA BHAGWAN PANHALKAR APP for Respondents : Mr.Amol Gandhi h/f. Mr.Sunil Nimbalkar

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 105 OF 2022 SAMPAT RANGNATH NAVTHAR & ANOTHER APP for Respondents : Mr.A.M.Pathan CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 107 OF 2022 MARIYANMBI SHAIKH KADIR & ANOTHER APP for Respondents : Mr.A.M.Pathan CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 109 OF 2022 AWANTABAI BHAUSAHEB MORE & ANOTHER APP for Respondents : Mr.A.M.Pathan

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 110 OF 2022 PANDURANG DINKAR PAWAR APP for Respondents : Mr.P.A.Bharat CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.

DATE : 23.04.2025 P.C. :

1] Heard the learned counsel for the applicants, so also, the learned counsel for the respondents. 2] The learned counsel appearing for the parties has filed joint pursis and the same is taken on record and marked 'X' for identification. The learned counsel for the parties submit that there is one crime, which is registered at the instance of Superintendent of Police, CBI, Anti Corruption Buruea, Pune, on 03.01.2012, being FIR No.RC/Pune/2012/A/0001. They further submit that out of 17 trials, the trial Court has framed charges in 10 trials for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B r/w. 420, 409, 467, 468, 471 of IPC and under Section 7 and 13 (2) r/w. 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

However, in remaining trials, the respondents - accused have been discharged for the offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act. They further submit that the applicant herein examined 44 witnesses in the trials which are subject matter of the present revisions. They further submit that in the event charges are restored, there would be great hardship to the accused as well as to the prosecuting agency. They further submits that they filed pursis for setting aside the impugned orders in the present revisions. As such, all the Criminal Revision Applications are allowed in terms of prayer clause-C, respectively. 3] The learned counsel for the parties submits that the trials are pending since last 11 years, therefore, the trial Court be directed to expedite the trials.

4] Considering the same, the trial Court is directed to conclude the trial as early as possible.

5] All pending Criminal Applications, if any, are also disposed of.

[ARUN R. PEDNEKER] JUDGE DDC