Sakharam Champatrao Yevalikar vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2017 Latest Caselaw 4790 Bom

                                                                       WP/359/2008
                                        1

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

           913 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.359 OF 2008


 Shri Sakharam Champtrao Yevalikar
 Age 52 years, Occu. Service,
 Presently working as Tahsildar, Tuljapur,
 R/o Tuljapur, District Osmanabad                         ...        Petitioner
                  Versus
 1.       The State of Maharashtra
          Through the Tuljapur Police Station
          Tuljapur, District Osmanabad

 2.       Shri Rajabhau Digambar Mane,
          Age 30 years, Occu : Agriculture,
          R/o At Tuljapur, District Osmanabad             ...        Respondents

                                 ...
 Mr. Mukul Kulkarni, Advocate for Petitioner
 Mr. R.V.Dasalkar, AGP for State/Respondent No.1
 Mr. V.V.Ingale, Advocate for Respondent No.2
                                 ...

                               CORAM : T.V.NALAWADE, AND
                                       SUNIL K. KOTWAL, JJ.

DATED : 20th July, 2017

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Shri. T.V.Nalawade, J.) :-

1. This petition is filed for quashment of F.I.R. bearing M.

Case No.20/08 registered at Tuljapur Police Station, District

Osmanabad for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 120-

B of the Indian Penal Code. Both the sides are heard.

WP/359/2008

2. On behalf of Respondent No.1 / State, the Investigating

Officer has filed affidavit-in-reply and thereby supported the

allegations made in the complaint.

3. The private complaint was filed by Respondent No.2 in

the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.) Tuljapur, and the

learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.) has made an order directing the

Investigating Officer to investigate the matter under Section 156(3) of

the Criminal Procedure Code (for the sake of brevity, hereinafter,

referred to as "the Cr.P.C."). Due to the said order, the crime is

registered on the aforesaid complaint. Specific allegations are made

that, the present petitioner being Tahsildar, Tuljapur is the controlling

and supervising authority to release the quota of foodgrains from

Government Godown in favour of the ration shops and the Tahsildar

and Naib Tahsildar had joined the hands with the shop keepers and

false account was created in respect of distribution of foodgrains to

card holders. Further allegation is made that, even when there were

allegations against one shop keeper Rajendra Rathod that, he had not

maintained proper accounts of distribution, further quota was released

in his favour. The particulars of release of the foodgrains are given in

the complaint and allegations are made that, only because of joining

hands by these officers with the shop keepers, the misappropriation of

WP/359/2008

foodgrains meant for public distribution took place.

4. It is a fact that, hundreds of incidences are noticed of

creation of false record of distribution of foodgrains which was meant

for public distribution system and those foodgrains were sent to open

market for selling them. The rate of foodgrains available at the Fare

Price Shop are much lower than the rate of the foodgrains in open

market and to make profit, the foodgrains meant for the public

distribution system are misappropriated and for that false accounts are

created, due to which, poor persons are not getting foodgrains. There

is a clear possibility that such incidence took place due to joining

hands by the Revenue Officers with shop keepers. Even when such

incidences are noticed, the authorities are not taking immediate action

of suspension of license and to dis-continue the supply. In the present

matter learned counsel for petitioner submitted that when the

complaints were received, the petitioner gave direction to the Naib

Tahsildar to see that the report is given to police. He submitted that on

05.05.2008, FIR was lodged and the crime was registered against the

said shop keeper for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of

the Essential Commodities Act. However, it is not disputed that after

registration of the FIR, the supply continued. As a supervising

authority, it is also the duty of the Tahsildar to take further action by

WP/359/2008

making a report to the District Supply Officer and to see that the

license is suspended and distribution of quota is also stopped. There is

specific allegation that no such steps were taken and the supply was

continued to said shop keeper.

5. The Investigating Officer has filed affidavit which is to

the effect that, he noticed that more quantity of rice was released than

the quantity claimed by Panchayat Samiti and there was collusion

between Revenue Officers and some other officers. He has given

name of those persons. The reply affidavit shows that, the

Investigating Officer has formed opinion that, the detail investigation

of matter is necessary. Learned APP supported the complainant and

opposed the present proceedings.

6. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that there is a

possibility that, there is some misconception in the mind of

Investigating Officer. The learned counsel submits that, the

Investigating Officer has not properly perused the record of the shop

keeper and also Panchayat Samiti and that there is a possibility that he

has not appreciated the things properly. When the investigation is still

in progress and all material is not collected by him and aforesaid

opinion is formed by Investigating Officer, this Court is not expected

WP/359/2008

to interfere in the investigation and hold that some allegations are

false. This Court holds that, thorough investigation needs to be made.

7. In the result, petition stands dismissed. Interim relief, if

any granted is vacated.

          (SUNIL K. KOTWAL, J.)               (T.V.NALAWADE, J.)

                                        ...
 vmk