High Court
Legal Reasoning
1 544-23ABA+.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.544 OF 2023LATIF S/O IBRAHIM PATHANVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER…Mr. V.D. Sapkal, Sr. Advocate i/b Mr. S.R. Sapkal, Advocate forApplicantMr. S.B. Jadhav, APP for Respondents – StateMr. R.O Awasarmol, Advocate to Assist APP…ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1211 OF 2023SARANG BHIKUSING CHAVANVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER…Mr. Dhananjay M. Shinde, Advocate for ApplicantMr. S.B. Jadhav, APP for Respondents – StateMr. R.O Awasarmol, Advocate to Assist APP… CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J. DATE : 17th January, 2024ORDER : 1.Applicants in both the applications apprehend arrest inCrime No.108/2023, registered with Sengaon Police Station, Hingoli,for offence punishable under Sections 420, 409, 468, 471 r/w 34 ofthe Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 7 of EssentialCommodities Act, 1955.2.Latif Ibrahim Pathan, applicant in Anticipatory BailApplication No.544/2023, is working as District Supply Officer atHingoli. Sarang Bhikusing Chavan applicant in Anticipatory BailSVH 2 544-23ABA+.odtApplication No.1211/2023 is Tahsildar, who has worked at SengaonTahsil Office till February, 2014 as In-charge Tahsildar.3.FIR is registered on the basis of private complaint ofVijay Raut, Advocate. Prosecution case in short is that informantVijay Raut, Advocate is worker of Prahar Janashakti Party. From theinformation he got under Right to Information Act, he found thatDistrict Supply Officer, Tahsildar, Government Servants of TahsilOffice, Sengaon, as well as concerned staff of Tahsil Office and staffworking at Government godown made conspiracy with the personswho were related to demand and distribution of food grains to fairprice shops in various schemes. Serious irregularities were made indistributing excess quota of essential commodities like wheat, rice,etc. to certain fair price shop owners during the period between2014 to 2017. Though fair price shops owners deposited lessamount, they were allotted more food grains. Government officerserased some entries regarding name of fair price shop owners andquantity of food grains supplied to them. More quantity of grainswas supplied to them than the permit which was issued to fair priceshop owners. In audit report irregularities were pointed out. Due toirregularities and negligence of concerned staff loss was caused tothe Government.3.Heard learned Senior Advocate and learned Advocatefor applicants, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State andSVH
Legal Reasoning
3 544-23ABA+.odtlearned advocate to assist learned APP. Perused the investigationpapers.4.Learned Senior Advocate for applicant Latif Pathansubmits that, as per Government of Maharashtra Food and CivilSupply Department, Manual of instructions to godown keepers andgodown Managers and Manual of Food Account, it is responsibility ofTahsildar and Nayab Tahsildar to maintain Unit Registered, issuecorrect quantity permits and deposit cash in Government Treasuryand keep all records updated of all fair price shop in taluka andgodown. It is responsibility of concerned inspection officer to inspectgodown carefully and if any irregularity is found then inspectionofficer is to take effective steps in that behalf. District supply officeris to issue orders for distribution according to units assigned Talukawise, to make payments to Food Corporation of India, to get thefood grains transported through transporters, to pay thetransporters, to issue licence for fair price shops, renewal of thoselicense, to prepare roster for godown inspections, get inspectionsdone through various officers get their reports, after receipt of saidreports forward them to Tahsildar for further action, to inquirecomplaints against fair price shop owners, to get auditors reportand send it to concerned Tahsildar for further action. Therefore, it ishis case that it is not his duty to verify and distribute food grains oressential commodities at Taluka level and it is the duty of TahsildarSVH 4 544-23ABA+.odtor Naib Tahsildar.5.Applicant Latif Ibrahim Pathan has from time to timemade correspondence with Tahsildar in respect of excess quantitysupplied to fair price shop owners and he has no role to play in thealleged offence. Applicant is innocent and is falsely implicated in theoffence.6.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the basis ofinvestigation papers submits that applicant Latif Pathan has notproduced audit report submitted to him. His custody is, therefore,necessary for recovery of said audit report. It is further contendedthat applicant Latif Pathan has failed to take effective steps on thereport dated 12/06/2015 of the inspection team and also oninspection report of Tahsildar, Sengaon, dated 17/04/2017. Whenthere are serious irregularities at Tahsil level, it is the duty of DistrictSupply Officer to effectively supervise and control the same. Theseirregularities are occurring since 2014 onwards. There is total lack ofeffective control of District Supply Officer and Tahsildar on thesubordinates and they have failed to take proper steps in thatbehalf.7.Applicant Pathan has placed on record correspondencemade by him with Tahsildar from time to time in respect of excessquantity distributed to fair price shops. He has even appointedSVH 5 544-23ABA+.odtCommittee of five members headed by Tahsildar, Sengaon, videorder dated 11/05/2015 to inquiry into the excess quantity of foodgrains distribution, mentioned in report dated 12/06/2015 and askedthe Committee to submit it’s report by 25/05/2015. Tahsildar,Sengaon, appears to have forwarded the report of said inquirydirectly to the Collector. No such report was submitted to theapplicant Latif Pathan. He has issued reminders / show-causenotices to the said Committee on 11/05/2015, 29/05/2018,13/07/2015, 31/08/2015, 24/09/2015, 18/11/2015, 16/02/2016,15/06/2016, 05/10/2016, 25/05/2017, 13/10/2017 and 25/10/2017.It is also mentioned in the said Communication that report dated12/06/2015 is not received by the office of applicant Pathan. As perthe report dated 12/06/2015, 5903.82 Quintal wheat and 2383.89Qunital rice was distributed in excess and responsibility to be fixedon Tahsildar, Nayab Tahsildar (Supply), Awal Karkoon, Clerk andgodown keeper, who are responsible for the said irregularities anddepartmental action was proposed against them and report besubmitted to the Collector. Show-cause notice / communicationsaddressed to Tahsildar by applicant shows that relevant record ofthe said report was not made available by the Tahsil Office.8.Taking into consideration the duty of District SupplyOfficer, there appears substance in the contention of applicant Latifthat he has taken effective steps from time to time to inquiry intoSVH 6 544-23ABA+.odtirregularities and distributing food grains than permit. Applicantfurther submits that 23 fair price shop owners have paid the amountof excess grains received by them and 14 fair price shop ownershave deposited part amount, whereas 18 shopkeepers have notdeposited the amount of excess food grains received by them. Fairprice shop owners approached Deputy Commissioner (Supply)challenging orders of recovery passed against them for liftingexcess quota than permitted. The Commissioner set aside theorders of recovery passed against fair price shop owners and thematter is remitted back to District Supply Officer and Tahsildar forappropriate action to be taken after verifying the record.9.Considering these peculiar facts there appearssubstance in the contention of applicant Pathan that he is notinvolved in alleged commission of offence. On the contrary fromtime to time he has taken effective steps to look into the matter.Applicant is Government Servant and is not likely to flee fromjustice. Applicant is, however duty bound to assist investigatingagency by producing documents which are in his custody, asked byinvestigating agency, which necessary for investigation purposes.10.Applicant Sarang Chavan, the then Tahsildar, submitsthat he was working as in-charge Tahsildar, Sengaon, only for aperiod of two months, between January, 2014 to February, 2014. Inthat view of the matter, he cannot be said to be involved inSVH
Decision
7 544-23ABA+.odtcommission of alleged offence and no document is in his custodynow.11.Investigation pertains to documents, most of which arealready seized by investigating officer. Whatever documentsinvestigating officer needs from applicant Latif Pathan, he shallproduce them within a period of two weeks from the date ofuploading of this order.12.In the result, both applications are allowed.13.In the event of arrest of applicant Latif Ibrahim Pathanand applicant Sarang Bhikusing Chavan in connection with CrimeNo.108/2023, registered with Sengaon Police Station, Hingoli, foroffence punishable under Sections 420, 409, 468, 471 r/w 34 of theIndian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 7 of Essential CommoditiesAct, 1955, applicants be released on executing P.B. and S.B. ofRs.15,000/- each with one surety in the like amount.14.Till filing of charge-sheet applicants shall attendconcerned police station on every second Sunday of each month,between 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. and co-operate in theinvestigation. Applicants shall not tamper prosecution evidence. (NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.)SVH