Bombay High Court 2016 proceedings

This page is a subsidiary of the Bombay High Court case, 2016 page. It presents everything the judges said in that case that was deemed to be significant, all their orders and opinions. Only some of their administrative pronouncements and "stand over" rulings have been omitted. Its sheer volume has been deemed too much to fit comfortably on the BHC 2016 main page.

Also here is a record of all the judges, which ones sat for which sessions, presented in two ways: first, a simple tally, second, in the context of the session records. It is hoped thereby that the reader may more clearly discern patterns and tendencies.

Some terminology may be very legalese-arcane or bureaucratese. Such terms will be underlined with their meaning or significance explained in the Glossary at page bottom, as are two of the lawyers mentioned.

Judges

Judges are presented in order of first appearance. It appears to be the court convention that the first judge listed in each session is the senior of the two.

Prakash D Naik - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 15

Naresh H Patil - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Ranjit V More - 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 27, 28, 29

Smt Dr Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi - 6, 8, 9, 20

Smt Revati Mohite Dere - 7, 10, 24, 25, 26

Smt Anuja Prabhudessai - 11, 12

Sarang V Kotwal - 13, 22, 23

RM Savant - 14, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26

Sandeep Kashinath Shinde - 14

Nitin M Jamdar - 16

Smt Sadhana S Jadhav - 17, 18, 19

BR Gavai - 21

BP Colabawalla - 21

Smt Bharati H Dangre - 27, 28, 29

Proceedings

Dates	Judges' Statements and Directives
Session 1 Aug 3 2016	Judges: Prakash D Naik and Naresh H Patil sat for sessions 1-5, the greatest continuity in the whole case. 1. The grievance of the petitioner is that since last three years the investigation did not reach finality. It is alleged that there is no substantial progress. 2. Learned APP submits that some documents are sent for expert's opinion in the year 2014. The report is still awaited. The issue raised is in respect of whether the Osho wrote the Will and in case Will was written, whether the existing document termed as Will is a genuine Will of Osho. 3. We direct the DCP (Crime), Pune to supervise the investigation. Learned APP shall intimate this Court about the further steps taken by the Investigating Agency. 4. List the matter on 12th August, 2016, High on Board
Session 2 Aug 12 2016	Judges: Naik and Patil 1. Learned APP submits that on the basis of photostat copy of the Will in question, handwriting expert's report was called for, which is received. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that after 23 years a document surfaced in Spain, which is referred as original and last Will of Osho. In the petitioner's view, the said Will must be forged one. It seems that Investigating Agency is yet to ascertain as to whether any such document titled and referred as “Will of Osho” has been presented in the proceeding, pending in a court of law in Spain. In case such a document is there, then the Investigating Agency would take appropriate steps. 2. We have perused the Government Handwriting expert's report in respect of signature of Osho. After perusal, we have returned the report to the learned APP. The petitioner relies upon a private handwriting expert's report. 3. Without expressing any opinion on the said experts' reports, we find it appropriate to observe that Investigating Agency shall take necessary steps for making further investigation in respect of the allegations made by the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel further submits that complaint was made to Reserve Bank of India regarding transfer of huge amounts from the Osho Ashram to foreign entities in violation of law. The Assistant General Manager, RBI by communication dated 5/6/2015 informed the petitioner that his letter has been forwarded to Directorate of Enforcement (DoE), New Delhi for necessary action at their end. Learned counsel submits that thereafter the petitioner has not heard anything on that issue. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for leave to add Reserve Bank of India and Directorate of Enforcement, New Delhi, as party-respondents. 6. Leave is granted. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that within two weeks amendment will be carried out. In case the amendment is carried out, issue notice to the added respondents, returnable four weeks thereafter. 7. We direct the DCP (Crime), Pune to give appropriate instructions to the Investigating Officer and monitor the further investigation. A status report be placed before us on the next date of hearing. 8. Stand over for four weeks, at 3.00 p.m.
Session 4 Oct 7 2016	Judges: Naik and Patil. The Directorate of Enforcement has appeared as respondent no.6 1. Learned APP Mrs. Shinde submitted that there is no further progress in the investigation to be informed to the Court except getting hand-writing expert's report and forwarding letters to the Central Government. Needless to mention that investigation is pending since last three years. 2. The API H.M. Nanaware, Koregaon Park Police Station, Pune has been deputed to instruct. Learned APP submits that a Senior officer was expected to appear but he has not turned up. 3. On the next date of hearing, we expect the Public Prosecutor to address the Court on the issues raised and discussed in the Court. Learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.6 submits that concerned authorities of respondent no.6 are looking into the matter. Learned APP and Counsel for respondent no.6 seek further adjournment. 4. Learned Senior Counsel Shri Kadam appearing in Criminal Application No. 383/2016 submitted that Intervenors be heard in the matter. The request is objected to by the Counsel appearing for the petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel Shri Jethmalani appears for Intervenor in Criminal Application No. 403/2016 in support of the petition. Both these applications would be taken up at appropriate stage. 5. On future dates the Investigating Officer shall attend the hearing with record. 6. On request of learned APP stand over to 25th October, 2016. To be listed at 3.00 p.m. 7. All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of the order.
Session 5 Oct 25 2016	Judges: Naik and Patil. Heard. 2. Mr. Shinde, learned Public Prosecutor submits that he had gone through the investigation papers. He submits that he would advise the State agency in respect of the future course to be adopted for completing the investigation at the earliest and for arriving at some definite conclusion in respect of the specific allegations made by the petitioner herein. Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that some proceedings are pending before the officers under the Bombay Public Trust Act. It would be necessary to verify record pending with the office of Charity Commissioner. 3. Learned counsel Mr. Singh appearing for respondent no.6 submits that some additional information in writing has been provided to respondent no.6–Enforcement Directorate and appropriate agency would look into the same. 4. In the facts, we observe that the investigating agency shall include experts in the field for examining the allegations and investigating into the same. 5. Investigating agency shall intimate the Court the status of the investigation on the next date. 6. The petitioner would submit a compilation of the proceedings initiated and pending in the High Court, Charity Commissioner's office or any other office in respect of the subject controversy to the Public Prosecutor and respondent no.6–Enforcement Directorate, at the earliest. 7. All the intervention applications would be taken up at the appropriate stage. 8. Stand over to 6th December, 2016.
Sessions 6-16 are mostly just "stand-overs" and similar shufflings of feet without much action. For the record, judges were ... session 6 Ranjit V More and Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi, session 7 More and Revati Mohite Dere, sessions 8&9 More and Phansalkar-Joshi again, session 10 More and Dere, sessions 11&12 More and Smt Anuja Prabhudessai, session 13 More and Sarang V Kotwal, session 14 RM Savant and Sandeep Kashinath Shinde (assumed to be a different SK Shinde from the SK Shinde acting on occasion as the learned Public Prosecutor for the original respondent, the State), session 15 More and Naik, session 16 More and Nitin M Jamdar
Session 17 Sep 12 2017	Judges: More and Smt Sadhana S Jadhav, also for sessions 18&19. Mr. Havnur, learned Counsel for the Petitioner at the outset seeks leave to amend the cause title of the Writ Petition so as to implead CBI and Union of India as party respondents. Necessary amendments shall be carried out within a week. The Registry thereafter shall issue notice to the added Respondents returnable on 27/9/2017, to be heard along with Writ Petition No. 1572/2017.
Session 20 No 28 2017	Judges: More and Phansalkar-Joshi Heard Mr. Havnur, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Shinde, learned APP for the State and Mr. Patil, learned counsel for the respondent No.6- Enforcement Directorate. We have also heard Mr. Kadam and Mr. Jethmalani, learned senior counsel and Mr. Mali, learned counsel appearing for the respective intervenors. 2. The petition is filed for transfer of investigation of the subject FIR to the CBI. The transfer is sought on the ground that the investigation involves international ramifications, there are conflicting versions regarding genuineness of the will of Osho, violation of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (for short “the FEMA”) and crores of Rupees are siphoned out of India illegally. 3.The transfer of the investigation is opposed on the ground that alleged illegal transfer of funds is on the basis of deed of assignment executed in the year 1978. It was contended that under the will in question, all residuary interest in the Osho's property was bequeathed to the trustees of Osho International Foundation. It is also contended that the original will was destroyed long back and therefore, no purpose would be served by transferring the investigation to CBI. 4. Mr. Kadam, learned senior counsel for the intervenor, pointed out that no exceptional case is made out for transfer of investigation to CBI. 5. Ms. Shinde, learned APP, pointed out the progress made in the investigation and submitted that a Letter of Rogatory (request for assistance from Spain in investigation in subject FIR) is written to the Under Secretary (Legal), Internal Security Division, Ministry of Home Affairs, Lok Nayak Bhavan, New Delhi on 31st August, 2016 and reminder is also given on 2nd March, 2017. She submitted that in response to these letters, some queries are raised by the Home Ministry which are answered by Koregaon Park Police Station, Pune, by submitting revised proposal on 2nd November, 2017. She has also placed on record a report dated 28th November, 2017 of the Police Inspector, Koregaon Park Police Station, Pune, to support her contention. 6. Mr. Patil, learned counsel for the respondent No.6, also placed on record the status of investigation by the Enforcement Directorate under the FEMA. 7. We have gone through the report of the police Inspector of Koregaon Park Police Station as well as the status report filed by the respondent No.6-Enforcement Directorate. At this stage, we are satisfied that the investigation is progressing on appropriate line and, therefore, we do not propose to pass any order regarding transfer of the same at this stage. 8. We direct the investigating officer of the subject crime to expedite the investigation and take further steps in pursuance of their proposal dated 2nd November, 2017. We also direct the Under Secretary (Legal), Internal Security Division, Ministry of Home Affairs, Lok Nayak Bhavan, New Delhi, to take appropriate decision at the earliest regarding fresh proposal submitted by Koregaon Park Police Station in the subject crime on 2nd November, 2017. 9. The writ petition is adjourned to 15th January, 2018, for further hearing. 10. The Koregaon Park Police Station, Pune, as well as the respondent No.6-Enforcement Directorate shall file fresh report regarding progress of the investigation in the subject crime. 11. The report submitted by the respondent No.6- Enforcement Directorate is returned back.
Session 21 Jan 16 2018	Judges: BR Gavai and BP Colabawalla Taking into consideration the nature of allegations, we request the learned APP to take instructions from the Commissioner of Police, Pune, as to whether the investigation of the offences could be transferred to the Economic Offence Wing (EOW) of the Commissionerate of Police, Pune. 2 S. O. to 23rd January, 2018.
Session 22 Mar 28 2018	Judges: Savant and Kotwal 1. In terms of the order dated 23-­1-­2018, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Cyber Crime, Pune City has submitted for our perusal his report dated 26-­3-­2018. The said report discloses the investigation carried out till date and the contours of the investigation that would be carried out in future. Since the investigation is on, we do not deem it appropriate to express any opinion in that regard at this stage. Since the Investigation Officer seeks further time, we accordingly defer the hearing of the above matters till 25-­4-­2018. We expect a further report from the Investigation Officer on the adjourned date.
Session 23 Apr 25 2018	Judges: Savant and Kotwal again 1. The learned Addl. P.P. Mrs. Pai tenders the report of Smt. Swati Desai, Police Inspector, Cyber and Economic Offences, Pune City. The said report is in the nature of a status report of the progress of the investigation in respect of the FIR being C.R. No.149 of 2013. In the said report, it has been mentioned that the supplementary statements of the persons mentioned in the said report have been recorded. The report also mentions about the willingness of one of the accused Philip Talkies[sic, = Niren] to cooperate with the investigation though he is suffering from a serious ailment i.e. cancer and has been advised against travelling. It has been mentioned that the information is elicited from the accused by putting it to him in question and answer form. Insofar as the disputed Will which is filed in the Spanish Court is concerned, the steps which have been taken to procure a copy of the Will from the Spanish Court, have been mentioned. It has also been mentioned in the report that the supplementary statement of the complainant Yogesh Nawerlal Thakkar has also been recorded wherein he has stated that he would produce the relevant material before the investigating agency. The factum of the audit report being submitted, has also been recorded, as also the factum of the caretaker Alisha having expired has also been reported. 2. Having regard to the said report dated 24/04/2018, we are of the view that the investigation is proceeding in the right direction. We, therefore, defer the hearing of the above Writ Petition until 29/06/2018 on which day we expect a further report.
Session 24 Jun 29 2018	Judges: Savant and Dere 1. A report in a sealed cover is tendered by the Investigating Officer. We are not satisfied with the manner in which the investigation has progressed since our last order i.e. one passed on 25th April 2018. Insofar as the accused Philip Toelkies is concerned, it is stated in the report that a questionnaire has been sent to him and his reply is awaited. It is further stated that a reminder has been sent to him. Insofar as the said accused is concerned, the learned senior counsel Mr. Jethmalani states that though it is claimed that the said accused is suffering from cancer, he seems to be very much active, as can be seen from the material which is on his website. We, therefore, request the learned senior counsel to provide the said material to the investigating agency, so that, they can take appropriate steps, having regard to the said material. The rest of the report is also bereft of the particulars as regards the dates and time and an impression is given that the report is filed merely to comply with our directions. 2 We, therefore, direct the Investigating Officer Swati Desai to personally remain present in Court on the next date. We expect that some progress would be made by the said date at least insofar as the persons who are available in the Country and as regards the accused Philip Toelkies. We also direct that only one A.P.P should appear in the matter throughout in the interest of continuity. 3 We defer the hearing of the above group to 12th July 2018. The report to be put back in the sealed cover.
Session 25 Ju1 l2 2018	Judges: Savant and Dere again 1. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner Shri Sugandh Deshmukh as also the learned Senior Counsel Shri Mahesh Jethmalani draw our attention to the report dated 10/07/2018 of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Government of NCT of Delhi which is in respect of the signature of the testator Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh. The said report has been given after comparing the signature appearing on the document which is allegedly forged with the admitted signatures of Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh which are appearing in various documents which are referred to and which have been reflected in the table appearing in paragraph 3 of the report dated 11/07/2018 submitted by the Investigating Officer. 2. In so far as the report of the hand writing expert is concerned, it appears that such a report was obtained by the Koregaon Park Police Station whilst it was seized with the investigation in the year 2014. The hand writing expert from whom the opinion was obtained opined that it was not possible to give a definite opinion on the basis of a photocopy. The said fact has been referred to in the report dated 11/07/2018 which has been submitted by the Investigating Officer Mrs. Swati Desai today to us. We direct the learned counsel for the Petitioner Shri Sugandh Deshmukh to hand over a copy of the report dated 10/07/2018 of the FSL to the learned APP Mrs. Sangita Shinde who would hand over the same to the Investigating Officer Mrs.Swati Desai. The Investigating Officer may thereafter consider the said report and take an appropriate decision thereon which may include a decision to re­send the document in question i.e. the xerox copy of the Will which is allegedly forged to the agency where the documents are usually sent by the EOW and obtain its opinion at the earliest. We expect a report from the Investigating Officer on the next date as we are not satisfied with the manner in which the progress in investigation was reported to us vide the said report dated 11/07/2018 which was submitted to us today. Stand over to 01/08/2018.
Session 26 Aug l 2018	Judges: Savant and Dere again 1. A report dated 18/07/2018 has been submitted by the Investigating Officer Ms. Swati Desai – Police Inspector of Economic Offence wing. The said report indicates that the documents in question which are referred to in clause 3 of paragraph 27 of the report dated 01/08/2018 have been sent to the Chief Examiner of Documents, Crime Branch, Pune on 18/07/2018. When queried, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor states that the matter is being pursued with the Chief Examiner of Documents so as to obtain the report expeditiously. We direct the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Economic Offences Wing, Pune to take up the matter with the Chief Examiner of Documents and see to it that the report is made available to the Investigating Officer as expeditiously as possible and within the outer limit of three weeks from date. Hence for the present adjourned to 28/08/2018. The report of the Investigating Officer to be put back in a sealed cover and to be kept in the custody of the learned Registrar (Judicial­I) of this Court.
Session 27 Aug 28 2018	Judges: More and Smt Bharati H Dangre 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties. 2. In pursuance of the directions issued under the order dated 1st August 2018, the police inspector, EOW, Pune City, Pune has filed report dated 28th August 2018. The report reveals that investigation into the subject crime is almost complete. Learned APP on instructions from the officer concerned, makes a statement that the investigation into the subject FIR would be completed and the appropriate report would be filed before the competent Court within four weeks from today. Statement is accepted. 3. In the light of above, we defer the matter for compliance to 1st October 2018. 4. The report submitted by the police inspector, EOW, Pune is sealed in an envelope and returned back to the concerned officer.
Session 28 Oct 1 2018	Judges: More and Dangre again Mentioned out of turn. Stand over to 08/10/2018. [That's all that was in the record for this session, included for completeness' sake.]
Session 29 Oct 12 2018	Judges: More and Dangre again 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. The Petition is filed for seeking direction to Respondent to transfer investigation of FIR bearing CR No.149 of 2013, to CBI. It is to be noted that earlier investigation of this FIR was transferred to EOW. 2. Mrs. Shinde, the learned APP, on instructions of concerned Investigating Officer, who is present in Court, makes a statement that the investigation of the said FIR is complete and thereafter Investigation Officer has filed 'C' Summary Report before the concerned Magistrate. In support of her submission, she placed on record 'C' Summary Report dated 27th September, 2018. 3. Mr. Anturkar, the learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioner and Mr. Jethmalani, the learned Senior Advocate for one of the intervener, submit that the investigation of the said FIR was supervised by this Court by the interim orders passed time to time especially interim order dated 12th July, 2018, and that the said orders are not complied with by the Investigating Officer and mechanically 'C' Summary Report is filed. We do not find merit in this contention. The fact remains that though the Petitioner sought transfer of investigation of proceedings, this Court has not granted the prayers. The Court has heard the matter from time to time and passed interim orders giving some directions to the Investigating Officer. After perusal of the 'C' Summary Report, we find that the directions given by this Court by way of interim orders are complied with and thereafter the material on the record is analysed and the Investigating Officer has taken a decision to file 'C' Summary Report. 4. The Petitioner as well as the Intervener in this behalf are at liberty to approach the Magistrate if they are aggrieved by filing of Summary Report. They can avail of the alternative remedy available. We are, therefore, not inclined to entertain this Petition in exercise of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition is dismissed, accordingly. No order as to costs. 5. In view of the dismissal of the Writ Petition, the Criminal Applications do not survive and are disposed of accordingly.

Glossary

terms, names	meaning, significance, explanation, etc
learned	used more or less solely as an adjective, pronounced with two syllables, not the one-syllable verb. It is apparently an obligatory honorific used in addressing or referring to all and any lawyers, meaning knowledgeable, well-educated.
APP	Additional Public Prosecutor. Two players in this drama are referred to as APP. They are the lawyers employed by the State to represent their interests as the primary respondent. "Additional" is an adjective applied to those less senior, perhaps probationary, as is the case with more than a few of the judges. More than one reference exists here also to "Public Prosecutor", without "Additional". This is not an oversight or abbreviation, and such would be the more senior.
Reserve Bank of India	(RBI) India's central bank and financial regulatory body, under the jurisdiction of Ministry of Finance
Directorate of Enforcement	(and Enforcement Directorate) -- an arm of the Indian central gov't in Delhi, a "specialized financial investigation agency under the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, which enforces the Foreign Exchange Management Act,1999 (FEMA) and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA)"
respondents	those "responding" to the petition, here the gov't entities required to "show up", abide by the judges' rulings and carry out their instructions
DCP	Deputy Commissioner of Police, the second-highest ranking police official in a jurisdiction
API	Assistant Police Inspector
Shri Kadam	Ravi Kadam, a retired Advocate-General for the state of Maharashtra, a big gun appearing for Mukesh and Devendra
Mr Singh	Anil C. Singh, Additional Solicitor General, one of the most highly placed lawyers in the Central gov't bureaucracy, signifying a relatively high level of interest in the case there
CBI	The Central Bureau of Investigation, the "premier investigating agency of India"
Economic Offence Wing	(EOW) A specialized branch of the Pune police, at least a step up from the Koregaon Park (local precinct) branch, which had been conducting the investigation up to that point
factum	a Latin word, pl facta: a written argument provided to the judges of appeal courts before they listen to the lawyers argue the case. The judges read the facta of each party, and read the cases or legislation referenced in each factum.
vide	a Latin word meaning "see"; in the legal context usually used to direct attention to something previously noted, or perhaps in a text
"C" Summary Report	One of three types of report, A, B and C, that can be issued by police after an investigation. Each type can mean a variety of things, and as such, the meaning may be opaque to the hoi polloi. "C" Summary is variously said to be offered by police in cases where: a) the FIR is found to be based on a mistake of fact -- as opposed to a "B" Summary, where the original complaint has been malicious, knowingly false b) there are grounds for believing an offence has been committed but insufficient evidence to justify sending anyone for trial c) the offender is not known d) the offence is of a civil nature, not criminal e) the case is neither true nor false (ie, it depends on what the meaning of "is" is, Lord help us with that one!)
	more to come