State of Maharashtra v. Anil Madhukar Rode

Corruption Act. Initially in the said First Information Report, four accused namely Jawahar Dube, Bhaurao Dudhe, Parshuram Nandeshwar and Devrao Kothalkar were involved. It was alleged in the FIR that these 4 accused, who were holding the responsible post in the Zilla Parishad misappropriated the government money to the tune of Rs.4,43,30,512/-. Initially the investigation was carried out by the local police and thereafter the same was transferred to the C.I.D. (Crimes), Amravati. In the subsequent investigation, the compass of enquiry was expanded and it was found by the investigating agency that there were as many as 62 accused involved including 29 government officials working in the various divisions like irrigation division and, Accountant of accounts division of Zilla Parishad, Amravati, whereas other 33 accused persons are the proprietors of bogus companies. As per the investigating agency, one Jawahar 3 Dubey is the mastermind of the whole scam. He floated various bogus companies and with the help of these companies caused loss to the public exchequer. As per enquiry report, there is major withdrawal of money for water pumping, vehicle repairing and maintenance and for fuel and this amount comes to the tune of Rs.20,17,65,203/- . The non-applicant was posted as CAFO for the period from 16/8/1994 to 07/1/1997 and from 01/12/1997 to 17/6/1998 and during his tenure, the non-applicant with ulterior motive, without scrutinizing and complying with the formalities passed the bills for Rs. 1,26,35,886/-. It is the case of the prosecution agency that though the bills were prepared and passed towards supply of goods, but actually no goods were supplied to the Zilla Parishad. The non- applicant apprehending his arrest by the police, presented Criminal Application No. 08/2010 for pre-arrest bail. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati, by order dated 02/3/2010 allowed the application on certain conditions. The State Government being aggrieved by the said order has approached this Court by present application for cancellation of the bail. Learned APP Mr. Parihar, has vehemently argued that the impugned order dated02/3/200 is erroneous and requires to be quashed and set aside by this Court. Learned APP has raised the following grounds to challenge the impugned order. 1] The offence is serious as huge government money is defalcated. 2] The non-applicant was holding responsible post as CAFO and it was his duty to supervise and check the financial affairs of Zilla Parishad, but the non-applicant has utterly failed to discharge his duty and the act of the non-applicant is not mere an irregularity, but an illegality. 3] While allowing the application, the court below has not 4 considered the record. 4] The non-applicant has sanctioned the bills without verifying whether there is actual supply of the material to the Zilla Parishad. Though, learned APP has referred in detail the special audit report, instead of referring to all those details, the broad features of the report are capsulized as follows : 1] Expenses of the vehicles : In the report, it is stated that by the auditor that there is large expenditure on the vehicles. Out of the vehicles on which the expenses were shown to be incurred only some of vehicles were owned by Zilla Parishad, whereas other vehicles are neither owned by Zilla Parishad nor they are hired by Zilla Parishad. The expenses towards maintenance and repairs as well as towards fuel were shown against these vehicles. 2] Certain expenses were shown to be done on Zilla Parishad works. It was shown that work was undertaken at certain villages and in the enquiry it was found that those villages are neither in the Amravati Division nor in Amravati Municipal Corporation area. 3] The expenses were shown over and above the estimated costs. Learned APP has referred to specific bills, such as bills of Harsha Electrical Company, which is a company floated by the prime accused Jawahar Dubey. . He submitted that the bills are sham and bogus and they are not signed by the proprietor. The bills of such bogus companies were prepared and they were hurriedly passed which show the ill motive and the non-applicant was the Accounts Officer at the relevant time. Learned APP submitted that the non- applicant, who was holding the post of CAFO was duty bound to check and verify the financial matters. He further submitted that if the non-applicant would have objected for sanctioning the bills, there 5 would not have been such defalcation. Learned APP submitted that the applicant is in possession of certain bills and in furtherance of the investigation the said bills are necessary for which the custodial interrogation of the non-applicant is must. Learned APP submitted that as per his instructions, the non-applicant is not cooperating with the investigating officer. To support his arguments, learned APP has placed reliance on the following judgments.