Citation
of the Case: Pralhad @ Pratap s/o Tanbaji
Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra (Mumbai High Court), Criminal Application (ABA)
No. 642 /2015, Date of Judgment: 27/01/2016
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.
