PRAKASH VASUDEO TARE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner seeks to quash Criminal Case No. 17/1992 pending against him before Special Court, Amravati.

(2.) The petitioner is in the employment of Accountant General (A and E) II maharashtra, Nagpur, as a Senior Division Accounts Officer. During 1982 the petitioner was deputed as Divisional Accountant in the office of Executive engineer, Upper Wardha Canal Division No. 3, Dhamangaon, District Amravati, shri S. K. Gite (accused No. 1) was the Executive Engineer and Shri M. B. Pande (accused No. 2) was the Divisional Store Keeper during the said period.

(3.) Charge-sheet dated 30-8-1992 was filed by the respondent before special Court, Amravati on 3-11-1992. It was registered as Special Criminal case No. 17/92. Shri Gite is accused No. 1, Shri Pande is accused No. 2 and the petitioner is accused No. 3. It is alleged that the accused persons made purchases without requirement and necessity; without giving advertisement through press; by showing in the outward register that quotation notices and supply orders were issued to the suppliers of materials; accused No. 1 Gite did not take any action against accused Nos. 2 and 3 working under him; accused No. 2 Pande did not inquire about the reasonability of the rates of the material in the local market; accused No. 3 (the petitioner) did not raise objection against the irregular purchases and failed to write objection in Form 1 (the Divisional Accountant's objection Book P. W. 512). It was alleged that the accused persons acted dishonestly by conspiring for their own financial gain and caused illegal loss of rs. 1,58,296/- to the Government. Thus accused Nos. 1 to 3 committed offence under section 409 (Criminal breach of trust) and 120-B (Conspiracy) of Indian penal Code. In addition to this, accused Nos. 1 and 2 were also charged for having committed offence under section 5 (1) (c) (d) and 5 (2) of the Prevention of corruption Act, 1947. The charge-sheet discloses that sanction to prosecute accused No. 3 (the petitioner) was not obtained as it was not required.