KRISHNA APPAYA PATIL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant-accused has filed the application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Cr.P.C. The Complainant Dr.Manjusha Subash Mulavane, Joint Director of Higher Education, Mumbai, has filed this complaint against the applicant/accused. Pursuant to the said information, the offence was registered at Special Case No.7 of 2013 under section 7 of The Maharashtra Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1987 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act'). The applicant/accused was working as a Principal of Siddharth College of Commerce and Economics (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'College'). It is the case of the prosecution that when the applicant/accused was holding the post of the Principal of the College, he demanded and collected fee for the year 2012-2013 illegally exceeding the scheduled fee under the Act. It is the case of the prosecution that the applicant/accused has collected an excess amount of Rs.2,970/- from each student. Thus, a total amount of Rs.50,40,000/- was collected by the applicant/accused, illegally.

(2.) Two applications were moved by the aggrieved persons claiming to be the complainants. One application was moved by one Vitthal Chavan and the other was moved by one Chitra Salunkhe. Both the applicants claimed that they are the complainants and they are the first ones who pointed out the commission of the offence to the police by giving written complaint. The learned Counsel for the Complainant Vitthal B. Chavan has submitted that he is a General Secretary of the Students' Union in the College. He has sent the application to the Senior Police Inspector, Azad Maidan Police Station on 10.10.2012 for taking legal action and filing the offence against the Principal of the College that there is an exploitation of the students in violation of the provisions of the Act. It is further submitted that the applicant Vithhal Chavan has pursued the matter before various authorities and also collected information under the RTI. The learned Counsel submitted that he is an aggrieved person as excess fee of Rs.2970/- was collected from him for the year 2012-2013. Thus, he has locus to be heard before this Court in the present application under section 438 of the Cr.P.C. In support of his submissions, the learned Counsel relied on the decision of a learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court in the case of Kunhiraman vs. State of Kerala, 2005 2 KerLT 685. The learned Counsel has submitted that under section 439(2) of the Cr.P.C., a person who is aggrieved, can move the application for cancellation of bail and, therefore, if at all, there is a person aggrieved, then, he also has locus to argue and the audience is to be given to him while deciding the application under section 438 also. In support of his submission, he also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Puran vs. Rambilas & anr., 2001 SCC(Cri) 1124. The learned Counsel for the applicant/accused Chitra Salunkhe also argued and submitted that the applicant has given the application to Senior P.I. of Azad Maidan Police Station on 30.12.2012 against the applicant/accused that FIR to be registered against the applicant/accused as he has collected excess fee than the scheduled fee under the Act.

(3.) The two applications are opposed by the applicant/accused. The learned Counsel appearing for the applicant/accused in support of the submissions relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of Prem Kumar Sharma vs. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Application No.391 of 2011 in Criminal Anticipatory Bail Application No.599 of 2011 decided on 29.3.2012.