GIRDHARILAL MADHAVDAS RAMRAKHYA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After filing of the charge sheet in Crime No.153/2016 registered with Dondaicha Police Station Dist. Dhule for the offences punishable under Sections 406 , 409 , 420 , 464 , 465 , 468 , 471 , 120 B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 13 (1) (c) (d), 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act , one of the accused is seeking bail.

(2.) In sum and substance the allegations are to the effect that Integrated Housing & Slum Development Programme (IHSDP) sponsored by the Central Government was to be implemented at Dondaicha town. It was a huge project and several tenders were floated and the contracts were given out to different contractors to erect houses. It is alleged that the Municipal Council appointed a committee of three persons which included the present applicant to oversee execution and implementation of the scheme. It is alleged that the applicant acting behind the curtains got one of the construction site allotted to a Company Shrikrupa Group and Constructions and got it allotted a work to the tune of Rs.29 crores. He thereafter got his nephew one Rajesh Kamra appointed as a Supervisor of the Company and through him got the moneys transferred from that Company to his account. Thus he has indulged in misappropriation and has committed criminal breach of trust.

(3.) The learned advocate for the applicant took me through the papers and submits that assuming that moneys have been transferred from time to time in the account of the applicant that would not per se be sufficient to attribute him with misappropriation or criminal breach of trust. There is no record to show that the allotment of tender was exclusively within the purview/domain of the applicant. Though there are allegations about the constructions being sub-standard, having been carried out in excess of the requirement or at locations which were not approved and that the houses were allotted to person who were not eligible, all these allegations stand refuted in the report of the MHADA which was appointed as a nodel agency and was asked to investigate and inquire into all these allegations. The learned advocate points out that as a result of the inquiry MHADA has submitted a report which completely exonerates the applicant and observes that there was no substance in any of these allegations.