DINESH AGRAWAL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of parties.

(2.) The applicant is Bishop of Methodist Church in India. He is involved in a criminal case arising out of Crime No.70/2006 registered at Udgir (Rural) Police Station, for offence punishable under Section 420 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The respondent No.2 is Block Education Officer, attached to Panchayat Samiti, Udgir. He lodged a complaint with the Police that a school called, "Methodist English School, Bidar Road, Udgir" was being run without there being approval of the Government. In his complaint, the respondent No.2 alleged that the Head Master Sou.Veena Peter, present applicant Dr.Dinesh Agrawal as President and Secretary, by name N.L.Karkare committed fraud and cheating. They recovered fees from students and admitted the students without there being approval of the Government.

(3.) In spite of various opportunities availed by the respondent No.1 - State, no reply-affidvit was filed. It appears that there is no denial to the averments made in the application by the respondents. The applicant has produced copy of the order issued by the President, Council of Bishop in India. It appears that by order dated May 6th, 2004, the applicant was suspended to act as member of the Council. The suspension period was for six months. It also appears that in appeal preferred before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, the applicant was permitted to continue day to day work only to the extent of spiritual activities. He was not allowed to take any policy decision and was kept away from administrative work. There is no tangible evidence, whatsoever, to infer that he was working as a President of the said school. The applicant deserves immunity from the prosecution in view of the available record, which indicate that he was not allowed to work on administrative side. The respondent No.2 has not produced a single document to show that the applicant looked after the daily administrative work of the said school or issued any receipt or was dealing in the official business of the school. Under these circumstances, the prosecution against the applicant is devoid of substance. An attempt is made by learned Advocate for the respondent No.2 to point out that in a meeting held in 2001, the applicant was assigned the work to start the school. As stated before, in 2004, he was suspended and subsequently, his administrative powers were curtailed. Needless to say, he was unable to work as President of the school in question.