PANDURANG BAPURAO PATIL Vs. MADHUKAR SHANKAR PUJARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking an order to quash an issue process order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangli, upon a complaint moved against the petitioners by the 1st respondent.

(2.) THE 1st respondents complaint was moved in 1984 and contained recitals covering, the period 1972 to 1983. Shortly stated, the case against the petitioners in the complaint was that as the office bearers of Nay Bharat Shikshan Mandai, a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act and a public trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, they had committed criminal breach of trust in respect of a total sum of Rs. 81,240/ -. This was done by showing false debits to various heads like contingency, quest speakers, honorarium, staff, messing, etc, etc. After recording the preliminary statement of the complainant, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate made a reference to the Police for carrying out ah investigation and submit a report. The officer who conducted the investigation questioned various people and thereafter submitted a report opining that except for 3 persons who spoke in support of the complainant, all the others contacted denied that any irregularies, much less misappropriation or breach of trust, had taken place. The recommendation made by the Investigating Officer was that there existed no case for entertaining the belief that the petitioners had committed an offence. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on 3. 12. 1985 observed that he had perused the statement of the complainant, the enquiry report and the enquiry papers and after hearing the Advocate representing the complainant directed the issue of process to the petitioners calling upon them to attend an enquiry wherein they were charged with the commission of offences punishable under sections 468, 477 A, 406, 478 and 420 nw. 34 of the I. P. C.

(3.) PETITIONERS grievance is that the order passed by the Magistrate is mechanical and without adverting to the reasons for his deviating from the recommendation of the Investigating Officer. The contention has to be up-held and the issue process order quashed. I do so for the reasons given below: