Case Law Details

Case Name : Pralhad @ Pratap s/o Tanbaji Pawar Vs State of Maharashtra (Bombay High Court)
Appeal Number : Criminal Application (ABA) No. 642 /2015
Date of Judgement/Order : 27/01/2016
Related Assessment Year :
Courts : All High Courts (1347) Bombay High Court (304)

Anticipatory bail rejected on possible embezzlement, HC strictly noted misuse of tax payer’s money & requested to eradication of corruption

Brief of the Case

Mumbai High Court held In the case of Pralhad @ Pratap s/o Tanbaji Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra that there has been a report also in the recent point of time that there are some more Corporations of the State of Maharashtra who have indulged into huge misappropriation of the taxpayers’ money in the alike fashion. Therefore, this Court expects the Director General of Police, MS, Mumbai and rather requests him to take up such cases and find out the veracity of such a claim made in newspapers, and if there is substance, to immediately proceed to take action in all such cases as the taxpayers are in deep anguish. Let the Government as well as mandarins in the corridors of power understand the excruciating pain and anguish of the tax payers, who have been suffering for over two decades in the State of Maharashtra. There is a onerous responsibility on those who govern to prove to the taxpayers that eradication of corruption would not prove for them a “forlorn hope”. Based on above, in the case in hand, the possible embezzlement of a huge sum of Rs. 24 crores from the office of the applicant, it will be wholly improper to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. Hence application rejected.

Facts of the Case

The State Government established ‘Lokshahir Annabhau Sathe Vikas Mahamandal’ for upliftment of “Matang” community, which falls in Scheduled Caste in the State of Maharashtra. The chairman of this corporation who was a political appointee, in connivance with the managing director of the Mahamandal and with the help of bank officer of Bank of Maharashtra withdrew crores of rupees by showing fake expenditure, disbursement of loan of subsidy, grant etc. and misappropriated the same for personal benefits. As per the reply submitted by the state, the total amount under misappropriation and embezzlement is approx. Rs. 385 crores.

The allegation on applicant is that amount of Rs. 28 crores were transferred to the accounts’ which were separately opened by the applicant in the Bank of Maharashtra, Main Branch, Bhandara. Also, the applicant transferred an account which was non-operated in the branch of Ganeshpur Bank of Maharashtra to the main branch of Bank of Maharashtra Bhandara. The amount of Rs. 28 crores which was transferred to the aforesaid two accounts an amount of Rs. 24,69,48,000/ were withdrawn by self cheques by the applicant.

The Investigating officer had specifically asked him as to how and in which manner he has utilized the amount of Rs.24,69,48,000/ withdrawn by him to which the answer given was that he has distributed the said amount to the 3100 beneficiaries/members of the society, but when he was asked to give names of the beneficiaries/members the applicant failed to give the names and also had no documents regarding distribution of the amount to the said beneficiaries/ members of the society. He failed to submit the names as well as documents to that effect. The answers given by the applicant were not satisfactory nor was it of any help in further investigation to the Investigating officer.

In Crime No. 160/2015 registered at Police Station, Bhandara, for offence punishable under Sections 408, 409, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the applicant is seeking grant of anticipatory bail.

Held by High Court

High Court held that reply dated 16.12.2015 filed on behalf of the State shows misappropriation and embezzlement of amount to the tune of approximately Rs. 385 crores, which is stymieing. It shocks one and all as to the manner in which the taxpayers’ money is being swindled, misappropriated and robbed by such unscrupulous holders of posts. The money was meant for upliftment of the ‘Matang’ community and instead of that, the political appointee, the Chairman Ramesh Kadam, in league with the Managing Director and the Bank Officers of the Bank of Maharashtra, looted the tax payers’ money. How this huge amount of Rs. 385 crores will come back is a ‘million dollar question’.

Does the taxpayer pay the money to the Government for such kind of acrobatics being played?

The high court stated that for the last over two decades, this has become the order of the day and sordid state of affairs; whereas the taxpayers’ are merely looking at this grim situation. Ethics and morals have taken a back seat in modern India’s scheme of things. In my considered opinion, corruption can be beaten if all work together. To eradicate the cancer of corruption the “hydraheaded monster”, it is now a high time for the citizens to come together to tell their Governments that they have had enough. That is this miasma of corruption. If the same continues, taxpayers’ may resort to refuse to pay taxes by ‘noncooperation movement’.

Further there has been a report in the recent point of time that there are some more Corporations of the State of Maharashtra who have indulged into huge misappropriation of the taxpayers’ money in the alike fashion. Therefore, this Court expects the Director General of Police, MS, Mumbai and rather requests him to take up such cases and find out the veracity of such a claim made in newspapers, and if there is substance, to immediately proceed to take action in all such cases as the taxpayers are in deep anguish. Let the Government as well as mandarins in the corridors of power understand the excruciating pain and anguish of the tax payers, who have been suffering for over two decades in the State of Maharashtra. There is a onerous responsibility on those who govern to prove to the taxpayers that eradication of corruption would not prove for them a “forlorn hope”.

Based on above facts, in the case in hand, the possible embezzlement of a huge sum of Rs. 24 crores from the office of the applicant, it will be wholly improper to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. Hence application rejected.

 Accordingly appeal of the applicant rejected.

More Under Corporate Law

Posted Under

Category : Corporate Law (2215)
Type : Featured (3632) Judiciary (8913)

Search Posts by Date

October 2016
MTWTFSS
« Sep  
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31