Allowed

Manohar Maruti Patil v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC16 Jul 2014ABA/221/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order grants pre-arrest anticipatory bail to District Supply Officer Manohar Patil and his representative under Section 438 CrPC in a case alleging rice weight shortage under Section 407 IPC. The text lists conditions including a police bond, non-tampering with evidence, and cooperation with investigation.

What did the court decide?

Pre-arrest bail granted on furnishing a P.R. bond of Rs.15,000 with sureties; condition not to tamper with evidence and to report to police.

Manohar Maruti Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra — Corruption | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

Sherla V.

¶2

aba.221.2014+.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.221 OF 2014

¶5

Manohar Maruti Patil ... Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent

¶6

a/w ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.230 OF 2014

¶7

Virendrakumar Munidraprasad Divedi ... Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent

¶8

Mr.V.V. Purwant for the Applicants Ms.A.A. Mane, APP, for Respondent – State Mr.B.S. Ghadge, PSI, Gavbhag police station, Kolhpuar – present

¶9

CORAM: MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.

¶10

DATE: JULY 16, 2014

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

The applications are moved for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code as the FIR was lodged at the instance of one Sanjay Balaso Navale for the offences punishable under section 407 r/w section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The crime is registered at C.R. No.8 of 2014 of Gavbhag police station, Ichalkaranji, Kolhapur. It is the case of the complainant that primary and secondary schools in Maharashtra are supplied rice pursuant to Mid-Day Meal Scheme of the

¶13

1 / 4

¶14

aba.221.2014+.doc

¶15

Government and accordingly 100 gms of rice is provided to every student from 1^st standard to 5^th standard and 150 gms of rice to every student from 6^th Standard to 8^th Standard. The Government of Maharashtra has given the contract of supply of rice to Maharashtra State Cooperative Marketing Federation, Mumbai to provide the rice to the concerned schools as per the requirement of the Education Board. The applicant/accused Manohar Patil is the District Supply Officer and the co-accused Vidrendrakumar Divedi is his representative. It is the case of the complainant that the Federation is responsible to supply this rice as per the requirement. The Federation used to receive rice from the Food Corporation of India and thereafter, the said rice is distributed to different schools. However, some social workers from Ichalkaranji went to the school Nos.42 – Karmaveer Bhaurao Patil Vidya Mandir and 43 – Yashwantrao Chavan Vidya Mandir and demanded the gunny bags which were supplied by the Federation to be weighed. Then, three gunny bags were weighed from the lot whereupon it was found that the weight of the rice in the said three bags was 41 kg, 43 kg and 46 kg, instead of 50 kg., which is the requirement in each gunny bag. On enquiry, a complaint was registered against the District Supply Officers i.e., the present applicants/accused.

¶16

Learned Counsel for the applicants/accused has submitted that the applicants/accused have not committed any offence. He argued that the

¶17

2 / 4

¶18

aba.221.2014+.doc

¶19

bags are never weighed or filled in by the Federation but the rice is accepted in the sealed gunny bags from the Food Corporation of India (FCI) and thereafter that rice is supplied to the respective schools. He has in support of his submissions produced a letter from the FCI whereby the FCI has informed that the it does not supply the rice on the basis of number of gunny bags but on the basis of quantity i.e., Metric Tonnes basis to the Federation. He further submitted that the Principals of the schools also stated that they did not weigh the rice when the gunny bags were supplied to them. Moreover, there is a delay in lodging of the offence from the actual date of delivery.

¶20

Learned Prosecutor has opposed the application. She relied on two affidavits filed by the Investigating Officer B.S. Ghadge of Gavbhag police station, Kolhapur.

¶21

On perusal of the documents and after going through the affidavits, a specific query was made by this Court as to whether the rice is filled in by the office of the Federation or not and whether it is weighed when it was supplied by the FCI to the Federation or not? Learned Prosecutor in order to satisfy the query of this Court, produced a letter from the Area Manager of the FCI reiterating that the FCI issues the food grains directly on the basis of weight irrespective of the number of bags. It has also

¶22

3 / 4

¶23

aba.221.2014+.doc

¶24

furnished information that the rice in the bags is filled in directly from Punjab, Haryana, Madhya Pradesh and Chattisgarh and those bags are brought by the railway and thereafter, those bags, as they are, are sent to the Federation. From the statement of one Madhukar Shyamrao Methil, who is the Store In-Charge of the godown of the Federation, it appears that the sealed gunny bags which were received by him are sent from Punjab, Haryana and Chattisgarh and though it is claimed that each bag consists of 50 kg rice, it cannot be said that the weight of the rice is always accurate as the rice is supplied by the FCI to the Federation on the basis of Metric Tonnes and not on the basis of per bag. After considering this, I am inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the applicants/accused as under:

¶25

i) In the event of arrest, the applicant be enlarged on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/-, with one or two sureties in the like amount;

¶26

ii) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence;

¶27

iii) The applicant shall cooperate with the investigating officer and shall report to the concerned police station as and when called, till the filing of chargesheet.

¶28

Anticipatory Bail Applications are disposed of accordingly.

¶29

(MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)

¶30

4 / 4

Manohar Maruti Patil v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manohar Maruti Patil v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Atul Bhairavnath Khupase Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sarojani Shirshail Nandure and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ali Sayyed Amir Ali Vs the State of Maharashtra

Manohar Maruti Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shashikant Krishna Joshi and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sharad Narayan Thakur Vs the State of Maharashtra