RASIKLAL MANILAL MORAKHIA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three applications were heard together, since they arise out of the same set of facts and relate to the same crimes, punishable under sections 409, 420 read with section 34 and section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. (i) Criminal Application No. 1646 of 1994 was filed in this Court on the 4th July, 1994 by the 6 applicants, who have prayed for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (ii) Criminal Application No. 1648 of 1994 has been filed by the original complainant - Maharashtra Small Scale Industries Development Corporation Limited, a Maharashtra Government Undertaking (for short, the MSSIDC ). This application has been filed on the 5th July, 1994 challenging the order dated June 30, 1994 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 19th Court, Esplanade, below the 3rd remand application dated 30th June 1994 in C. R. No. 5 of 1993. Under the impugned order dated June 30, 1994, two accused viz. Kantilal Manilal Morakhia and Prakash Shevantilal Morakhia have been ordered to be released on bail in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- each or on their depositing cash of Rs. 35,000/- each, with a direction to attend the Police Station from 10. 00 a. m. to 05. 00 p. m. until further orders. It must, however, be stated that this order has been stayed by this Court on 30th June 1994 itself, as a result of which the said two accused Kantilal and Prakash are still in the jail. (iii) Criminal Application No. 1654 of 1994 has been filed on the 6th July, 1994 by the State Government for similar relief as the one prayed for by the MSSIDC in its Criminal Application No. 1648 of 1994 viz. challenging the Order dated 30th June, 1994 passed by the learned Magistrate releasing the above mentioned two accused on bail. Since the three applications have been heard at length, it is necessary to briefly state a few facts for the purpose of considering the question of grant of bail and anticipatory bail.

(2.) M/s. Metal Tube and Rolling Mills, at Marol Maroshi Road, Andheri, Bombay : 59 is a Partnership Firm, dealing in import and manufacture of certain items, for which it approached the MSSIDC some time in the year, 1989. The said Firm had six partners and the two accused, who have been granted bail viz. Kantilal Morakhia and Prakash Morakhia, are the two principal partners; the other four partners being women viz.-- (i)Smt. Manjulaben Sevantilal Morkhia; (ii)Smt. Kantaben Rasiklal Morakhia; (iii)Smt. Rasilaben Ashokkumar Morakhia; and (iv)Kumari Bharati Manilal Morakhia. All the partners belong to the Morakhia Family and it seems that the Family has number of other Firms in which some of the 6 applicants in Criminal Application No. 1646 of 1994 are partners. The said 6 applicants in Criminal Application No. 1646 of 1994 apprehended their arrest in connection with the above mentioned offences punishable under sections 409, 420 read with section 34 and section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and have hence, applied for anticipatory bail. Initially, I was inclined to direct the Counsel for the applicants in Criminal Application No. 1646 of 1994 to approach the Sessions Court since that had not been done. However, it is brought to my notice that these three applications are pending in this Court for more than three weeks now and have been heard earlier by two of my learned brothers and hence, under the circumstances, rather than sending the matters back to the Sessions Court, I thought it proper to hear them finally.

(3.) IT appears that pursuant to the correspondence and the Agreement between the parties, the MSSIDC imported certain raw material for and on behalf of the Firm - M/s. Metal Tube and Rolling Mills, mentioned above, and the material imported was supposed to be used by the Firm for its own consumption and not for sale. It is stated that the imports were against Actual Users Licence. However, contrary to the terms of the said licence, the Firm and its partners are alleged to have disposed of the imported material in the open market since the value of the imported material viz. brass and copper had shot up during the relevant time. It is alleged that the parties to whom the imported material has been sold are yet to be traced and the details of the transactions of the said sale are yet to be collected.