TULSIDAS SUBHANRAO JADHAV Vs. GOVINDRAO BHAURAO BURGUTE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, hereinafter referred to as the Code.

(2.) PETITIONER and respondents Nos. 2 to 13 were Directors of a Provisional Board of Directors appointed by the Director of Sugar with the approval of the State Government. Respondent No. 1, hereinafter referred to as the complainant is a political rival of the petitioner and possibly respondents Nos. 2 to 13 also. In 1981, the petitioner and respondent Nos. 2 to 13 were elected to the Board of Directors of the Sugar factory joined as respondent No. 14 to this petition. After the 5 year term of the Board was over. , elections for electing the new Board of Directors were scheduled in December 1986. On 29th October 1986, the complainant came forth with a complaint to the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Barshi in the District of Sholapur, ascribing to petitioner and respondents Nos. 2 to 13 the commission of an offence punishable under section 406 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Shortly stated, it was contended that petitioner and respondents Nos. 2 to 13 had been acting arbitrarily in the management of the factorys affairs and had been so callous and negligent in the conduct of their duties as Directors that the total loss in the year ending 1985-86 came to about Rs. 10 crores. They had been making purchase for the factory at double the market rate and this was being done to benefit themselves though in different names. Petitioner and respondent Nos. 2 to 13 had collected monies on various pretext but had not made deposits to the funds for which they were supposed to have made deductions. A sum of Rs. 55,490/- had been accumulated for the ostensible purpose of being made over to the Chief Ministers Relief Fund. The amount had not yet been made over. As a result of all these acts, the persons accused were liable to be proceeded against for the commission of an offence punishable under section 406 r/w. 34 I. P. C. After the presentation of the complaint, the 1st respondent was examined. To some extent, what is summarised above was narrated by him in his preliminary statement. The Magistrate thereafter directed the issue of process against petitioner and respondents Nos. 2 to 13 to answer the accusation of having committed criminal breach of trust punishable under section 406 r/w. 34 IPC. Immediately, the news was flashed in newspapers having some sort of circulation in the Sholapur District inclusive of Barshi.

(3.) IN the present petition exception is taken to the issue process order on three counts. First, it is contended that the petitioner and respondents Nos. 2 to 13 were public servants within the meaning of section 197 of the Code, regard being had to sections 2 (20), 78 and 161 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Act, 1960 (Act ). Sanction of the Government had not been taken for the launching of the prosecution for that reason the Magistrate was not entitled to take congnizance of the offence ascribed to those named as culprits in the complaint. Secondly, the complaint was vague and did not give details of what each of the culprits was said to have done. Vague and omnibus allegations had been levelled against all those impleaded as accused persons. On the basis of such allegations, congnizance could not be taken. Lastly, the complaint was politically motivated and its timing showed that it was part of a political vendatta to prevent or make difficult the re-election of the petitioner and respondents Nos. 2 to 13.