Bombay High Court
RAMESH VASUDEO INAMDARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- S M MODAK
Holding
The revision is infructuous and is dismissed, with the matter to be decided by the Sessions Court during trial.
Summary
The applicant filed a criminal revision challenging the Sessions Court's order refusing to discharge him in a case involving offences under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act. The revision raised grounds of lack of material to frame charges and the absence of a valid sanction at the time cognizance was taken, noting that the sanction was obtained on 3 July 2013 after the charge‑sheet had been filed on 21 June 2013. The applicant’s discharge application did not raise the sanction issue, but the revision sought to raise it as ground D, alleging improper sanction and sanction by an incompetent authority. The High Court observed that, given the trial was already at the evidence‑recording stage and charges had been framed, the revision had become infructuous and the applicant could raise all contentions during the trial. No merits of the case were examined, and the revision was disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the order refusing to discharge the applicant is illegal for lack of sanction at the time of taking cognizance.
- Whether a sanction obtained after filing the charge‑sheet and by an allegedly incompetent authority vitiates the proceedings.
- Whether a criminal revision is maintainable at the stage when evidence is being recorded and charges have been framed.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- criminal revision
- discharge application
- sanction
- Prevention of Corruption Act
- charge sheet
- procedural law
- Sessions Court
- evidence stage
Judgment
LSP 1 12 revn 36.17 speaking.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Criminal Revision Application No. 36 of 2017
Ramesh Vasudeo Inamdar … Applicant
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra and anr. … Respondents.
Mr. Sandeep S. Salunkhe Advocate for the Applicant.
Mr. Shailesh S. Ghag APP for the Respondents-State.
CORAM : S.M. MODAK, J
DATE : 17th January 2026.
P.C. :
Heard learned counsel for the Applicant-accused and learned
Digitally
signed by
LATA
SUNIL
LATA SUNIL
PANJWANI
PANJWANI Date:
2026.02.21
15:53:31
APP.
+0530
2. Respondent No.2 is the first informant. Notice is served on
him. This revision application challenges the legality of the order
refusing to discharge the applicant for the offences punishable under
various Sections of IPC and under the Prevention of Corruption Act
(P.C. Act). Several grounds were taken before the Sessions Court.
They are absence of material to frame charge and absence of sanction
at the time of taking cognizance. The sanction under the P.C. Act
was obtained on 3rd July 2013 and charge-sheet was filed on 21 st June
2013.
Corrected vide speaking to minutes order dated 16/02/2026.
LSP 2 12 revn 36.17 speaking.doc
3. Now the stage of the case is recording of evidence. The charge
is also framed. In the application for discharge filed by the Applicant,
the ground of absence on sanction was not taken.
4. The learned Advocate for the Applicant invited my attention
to Ground No.’D’ of this revision application. It talks about
improper sanction and sanction accorded after filing of the charge-
sheet and sanction by incompetent authority.
5. Considering the stage of the case, this revision has now become
infructuous. All contentions are kept open. The Applicant is at
liberty to agitate all the grounds after commencement of the trial.
Sessions Court to decide the same at the time of appreciation of
evidence.
6. It is made clear that this Court has not made any observations
about merits of the matter.
7. The Criminal Revision Application is disposed of.
(S.M. MODAK, J.)
Corrected vide speaking to minutes order dated 16/02/2026.
Checking your session…