STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. ACHARYA SHRI DEVENDRAPRASADJI PABDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals arise from two complaints filed by the Charity Commissioner, State of Gujarat under Section 35(1) read with Section 66 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (which will hereinafter be referred to as the Act). In those complaints 10(sic) accused were proceeded against. It was said that they were the trustees of two trusts known as "Shree Swaminarayan Mandir" and "Narayan Mandir". The 1st accused in both those complaints was the Acharya, the 10th was said to be the Mahant and the other accused the associated trustees at the relevant time. It was said that all these trustees were appointed under two different schemes framed by the High Court of Bombay. The trial Court convicted the accused but in appeal the High Court of Gujarat acquitted all of them. It held that there is no proof to show that accused 2 to 10 were the trustees of the institutions at the time the alleged offence took place. It allowed the appeal of the 1st accused on the ground that the prosecution has failed to prove the required mens rea on his part. The State of Gujarat and the Charity Commissioner have brought these appeals after obtaining special leave from this Court.

(2.) In the first complaint the allegation is that the 1st accused withdrew from the trust funds in Samvat year 2014 a sum of Rs. 30277/53 for meeting his income-tax liability and that he reimbursed that amount only in Samvat year 2018. The allegation against the other accused is that they allowed the 1st accused to utilize that amount in contravention of the law. In the second complaint the allegation is that the 1st accused withdrew a sum of Rs. 40653/56 P in the Samvat year 2015 again for meeting income-tax liability and that he reimbursed that amount also in the Samvat year 2018 and that the other accused connived at the contravention of the law by the 1st accused.

(3.) Accused 2 to 10 pleaded that they were not the trustees of the institutions concerned during the Samvat years 2014 and 2015 nor were they aware of the withdrawals and as such they are not guilty of any offence. The 1st accused admitted the withdrawals mentioned in the complaints but his case was that the withdrawals were made from his Hathu Khata, a Khata built up by him and his ancestors and he has put back that amount.