Dismissed

Prakash Vishwanath Ashte and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC27 Sept 2013APPLN/1361/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicants challenged an enquiry report alleging misuse of public funds by allotting Zilla Parishad works to their relatives. The Court acknowledged the prima facie violation but dismissed the application, noting police approach as the expected procedure and keeping observations strictly prima facie.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed; all points kept open; observations prima facie.

Prakash Vishwanath Ashte and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and… — Corruption | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

Cri.Appln. No.1361/2011

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

Criminal Application No.1361 of 2011

¶5

Prakash s/o Vishwanath Ashte and others

¶6

... APPLICANTS

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

The State of Maharashtra & anr.

¶9

... RESPONDENTS

¶10

Shri A.A. Mukhedkar, Advocate for applicants Shri B.V. Wagh, A.P.P. for respondent No.1. Shri N.B. Jadhav, Advocate for respondent No.2

¶11

CORAM: K.U. CHANDIWAL & A.I.S. CHEEMA, JJ.

¶12

DATED: 30th September, 2013.

¶13

PER COURT :

¶14

Heard extensively. Investigation under Section

¶15

156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, directed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Osmanabad, pursuant to complaint of respondent No.2 Amarraje Kadam, is questioned.

¶16

Applicants are earlier members of Zilla Parishad. Mr. Mukhedkar says that, even if the works of

¶17

Cri.Appln. No.1361/2011

¶18

¶19

contract are allotted to family members of applicants, it will not invite a criminal action to be faced by them as at the most it will be warranting disqualification to be members of Zilla Parishad or Panchayat Samiti, as the case may be. Learned counsel says, initiation of complaint without filing any formal F.I.R. in terms of Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code is to be dealt heavily as alternate remedy even thereafter in terms of Section 154(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code to approach the learned Superintendent of Police, is not followed. In order to stretch his point, he has placed reliance to the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & ors. [ 2008 (2) Mh.L.J. (Cri.) 300 ]. This judgment deals with directions by High Court for C.B.I. enquiry. He further informs, by virtue of orders of learned Divisional Commissioner, dated 27.2.2013, the proceedings for disqualification of the applicants have turned infructuous as the period of the applicants as members has elapsed.

¶20

We have gone through the complaint and also the enquiry report of Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad, dated 24.1.2011, addressed to the

¶21

Cri.Appln. No.1361/2011

¶22

¶23

Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad, whereby he had urged to disqualify the applicants from members of Zilla Parishad.

¶24

The primary material collected by respondent No.2 and the Chief Executive Officer illustrates that, works in Zilla Parishad were brazenly allotted to members of Cooperative Society, where close relations of applicants like wife, son and others were either members or the office bearers. In spite of the fact that the affairs of distribution of work were manned by three member committee, however, recommendatory letters were issued by applicants to said Committee and prima facie influenced decision of its members. This is primarily against the spirit of very scheme and also it is in violation of Section 278 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961. This is precisely more so, the applicants are, by virtue of their position, brand themselves to be public servants within the definition embodied in Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code coupled with Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Public fund could not be diverted for personal use. There is primary material against the applicants.

¶25

Cri.Appln. No.1361/2011

¶26

¶27

We quite see, it was expected of the respondent No.2 to have approached police. This has been expected procedure as highlighted by Full Bench of this Court in the matter of Panchabhai Popatbhai Butani & ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & ors. [ 2009(4) Mh.L.J. (Cri.) 224 ]. The respondent No.2 has in his complaint petition, indicated of approaching police; and apathy on the part of later made him to approach the Court. Thus, jurisdiction of the Court was not inhibited as the matter is at precognizable stage, naturally at an embryonic stage. It does not call for interference. Criminal Application is dismissed. All points are kept open. Observations are prima facie in nature.

¶28

fmp/cri1361.11

Prakash Vishwanath Ashte and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash Vishwanath Ashte and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vithal Begajirao Vidhate Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Sunil Devtanath Upadhyay and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Yuvraj Sarjerao Wagh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Satpal Singh Rajpal Jaswinderpal Singh Rajpal and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Amandeep Singh Jarnail Singh Bagga Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Mukundrao Mahipat Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others