Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 21541 (BOM)

RAMESH VASUDEO INAMDAR v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

REVN/36/2017 · 2026-01-17

Shri S M Modak

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

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 APP. 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 21st June 2013. Corrected vide speaking to minutes order dated 16/02/2026. LATA SUNIL PANJWANI Digitally signed by LATA SUNIL PANJWANI Date: 2026.02.21 15:53:31 +0530 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.