AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
G. A. Sanap, J
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned advocates for the parties.
02] The challenge to the order dated 19th July, 2022 has been raised in the above two proceedings and therefore, the same are being disposed of by this common judgment. Applicant Nos.1 and 2 in the Criminal Application No.1158/2022 are the accused Nos.4 and 5 respectively in the Sessions Trial No.58/2010 and the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 in Writ Petition No.538/2022 are the accused Nos.1 and 2 respectively in the supplementary charge-sheet filed in the abovestated sessions trial.
03] The relevant facts are as follows:
Respondent No.2-Cotton Corporation of India (for short “C.C.I.”), a Union Government Undertaking, is mainly concerned with the purchase of cotton from the farmers at various stations and places in the State of Maharashtra. In the year 2010, 1412 cotton bales had been stored in the Godown of respondent No.3-Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation. The officials of the C.C.I. noticed that out of 1412 cotton bales, 1212 cotton bales were missing and 100 cotton bales had been damaged. It is stated that the offenders, in order to hide the misappropriation of the cotton bales, set on fire the cotton bales. It is stated that the offence of misappropriation of the cotton bales has been prima facie made out. The accused persons for the purpose of misappropriation of the cotton bales, created false and fabricated documents. 200 cotton bales were set on fire with an intention to cover up the misappropriation. On 8th May, 2010, a report was lodged at Pusad Police Station. On the basis of the report lodged by the officials of C.C.I., a crime bearing No.117/2010 came to be registered against the known and unknown accused for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 201, 406, 408, 420, 427, 436, 468, 469, 471, 109, 403, 414, 411 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”). The investigation in the crime revealed that some of the officials of the government played a very vital role in the commission of crime of misappropriation. The cotton bales were sold in the open market. Some of the accused sold the cotton bales. Some of the accused purchased the cotton bales.
04] During the course of investigation, 500 cotton bales were recovered from the accused No.4 and 400 cotton bales were recovered from accused No.5. Petitioner No.1 in Writ Petition No.538/2022 had sold 200 cotton bales. Rs.25,00,000/- came to be seized from him during the course of investigation. 100 cotton bales were sold by the petitioner No.2. The amount of Rs.12,49,000/- came to be recovered from him. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pusad by his order dated 29th August, 2012 granted permission to the C.C.I. to sell 900 cotton bales seized in the crime. 900 cotton bales were sold and the sale proceed of Rs.1,50,00,000/- was deposited in the Court. The Court further directed the deposit of the said amount in the State Bank of India in fixed deposit. Similarly, the amount of 300 cotton bales recovered from the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 in the sum of Rs.25,00,000/- + Rs.12,49,000/- = Rs.37,49,000/- is also invested in the State Bank of India, Pusad Branch in fixed deposit.
05] The C.C.I. on 5th December, 2019 made an application at Exh.357 in Sessions Trial No.58/2001 and sought permission for disbursement of the entire amount with interest to the C.C.I. It was the contention of the C.C.I. that the amount deposited in terms of the order of the Court is the sale proceeds of cotton bales, involved in the commission of crime. The trial is pending since 2010. The C.C.I. being a Government of India Undertaking has to discharge its obligation towards farmers. The main object of C.C.I. behind the purchase of cotton from the farmers is to provide minimum support price every year to the farmers. The C.C.I. is required to borrow money from various nationalized banks for managing its affairs and as such is required to pay higher rate of interest. The C.C.I. is entitled to get the amount deposited in the bank. The rate of interest on the FDR is lesser than the interest paid for the loan taken by the C.C.I. The amount in this case is huge. The C.C.I. is incurring day-to-day financial loss. It has been causing loss to the public exchequer. The C.C.I., therefore, prayed that subject to suitable conditions the directions be given to the bank to disburse the amount to C.C.I.
06] The accused Nos.4 and 5 filed reply to this application. According to them, 900 cotton bales were exclusively owned by them. The case of prosecution against them is false and frivolous. It is stated that accused Nos.4 and 5 being the lawful owners of 900 cotton bales, are entitled to get the amount of sale proceeds. It is stated that no case has been made out to grant such permission. Grant of such permission will create hardship to the accused persons.
07] The accused Nos.2 and 6 also filed reply. They opposed the application. According to them, the amount has been kept in safe custody of the bank. Considering the nature of the allegations and the evidence on record, the C.C.I. is not entitled to get the amount.
08] It is necessary to state that when the application at Exh.357 was made by the C.C.I. on 18th February, 2020, the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 in Writ Petition No.538/2022 were not part of the sessions trial, pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pusad. The impugned order was passed on 19th July, 2022. After conducting further investigation under Section 173 sub-section 8 of the Cr.PC, supplementary charge-sheet was filed against them on 29th January, 2020 in the Court of Magistrate. The learned Magistrate vide order dated 8th August, 2022 committed the said supplementary charge-sheet to the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The said supplementary charge-sheet on committal is a part of Sessions Trial No.58/2010.
09] Grievance has been made by the accused Nos.4 and 5. The main grievance of the accused Nos.4 and 5 is that they are the owners of 900 cotton bales and therefore, the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge allowing the C.C.I. to withdraw the said amount is contrary to law. It is further contended that the order would cause prejudice and hardship to the accused Nos.4 and 5. As far as the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 in Writ Petition 538/2022 are concerned, it is their case that they on their own deposited the amount. The amount was not seized from them. Similarly, they were not heard before passing the order dated 19th July, 2022. According to them, they have not committed any offence. A false prosecution has been launched against them.
10] I have heard learned advocates for the parties. Perused the record and proceedings.
11] Mr. S.V. Sirpurkar, learned advocate appearing for the applicants-accused Nos.4 and 5 in Criminal Application No.1158/2022 submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge instead of conducting the trial expeditiously, has passed an order which is contrary to the law. Learned advocate submitted that the Court would be required to decide the rival claims put-forth by the parties at the time of final adjudication of the sessions trial. Learned advocate submitted that in the fact and circumstances, the learned Additional Sessions Judge was not right in granting the application made by the C.C.I. Learned advocate submitted that the accused Nos.4 and 5 being the owners of 900 cotton bales would be deprived of the said amount.
12] Mr. A.J. Thakkar, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners in Writ Petition No.538/2022 submitted that the amount was not recovered or seized from them during the course of investigation. Learned advocate submitted that seizure receipts of the said amount relied upon by the prosecution have been created to make a show of the lawful seizure of the amount from the petitioner Nos.1 and 2. Learned advocate further submitted that before passing the order, the accused were not heard. Learned advocate, therefore, submitted that the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, without granting them an opportunity of hearing, is not sustainable.
13] Mr. Sohoni, learned advocate for the C.C.I. submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has imposed appropriate conditions to secure the interest of the accused persons. Learned advocate submitted that the C.C.I. is a Government of India Undertaking. Learned advocate pointed out that in terms of the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the official of the C.C.I. would be required to furnish an undertaking for return of the amount as and when ordered by the Court. Learned advocate, therefore, submitted that the apprehension put-forth by the accused is not well-founded. Learned advocate submitted that the amount involved in this crime is public money and therefore, it has to be used for the public purpose. Learned advocate submitted that the C.C.I. being the informant in the case have no control over the progress of the trial. Learned advocate pointed out that in the trial till date, charge has not been framed. Learned advocate, therefore, submitted that the C.C.I. cannot be deprived of the benefit of its money. Learned advocate further submitted that the accused persons were expected to insist for expeditious hearing of the trial. Learned advocate pointed out that this silence on the part of the accused has been causing loss to the C.C.I.
14] I have perused the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pusad. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pusad on appreciation of the facts stated in the application, found that the C.C.I. cannot be denied the benefit of its money. It is undisputed that the petitioner Nos.1 and 2, who are the accused Nos.1 and 2 in the supplementary charge-sheet, are facing serious charge in this case with the remaining accused. The accused Nos.4 and 5 from whom 900 cotton bales were seized are also facing the serious charges. The government officials were involved in the misappropriation. It is the case of prosecution that all the accused in furtherance of the common intention misappropriated the cotton bales. It is the case of prosecution that 200 cotton bales had been set on fire and destroyed to create evidence to hide the misappropriation. Thorough investigation has been conducted. Sufficient material was found during the course of investigation against the accused and therefore, they have been made to face the criminal prosecution in the Court of Law.
15] 900 cotton bales were sold during the pendency of the prosecution. As per the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pusad, the sale proceeds of the same has been deposited in the bank. Similarly, the accused Nos.1 and 2 in the supplementary charge-sheet, the petitioners in Writ Petition No.538/2022, have also been arrayed as accused. During the course of investigation, their complicity in the commission of crime was revealed. The accused No.1 in the supplementary charge-sheet was concerned with the sale of 200 cotton bales and the accused No.2 in the supplementary charge-sheet was concerned with the sale of 100 cotton bales. The record reveals that they had deposited the price of those cotton bales. The said amount was seized by the Investigating Officer in the crime. The Court on reporting the seizure of the said amount, directed the investment of the said amount during the pendency of the trial in the State Bank of India, Branch Pusad.
16] It is to be noted that the C.C.I. cannot be blamed for delay in disposal of the trial. In this case, the prosecution, the accused and the learned Judge, who is seized with the trial, can be held directly responsible for the delay of the trial. The prosecution and the accused did not make any application before the learned Additional Sessions Judge seeking expeditious disposal of the trial. Similarly, the learned Additional Sessions Judge before whom the matter is pending did not show the required promptness and seriousness. It is, therefore, seen that because of this delay, the C.C.I., who is otherwise entitled to get the amount, is denied the benefit of the same. The amount involved in the crime is public money. The C.C.I. being a Government Undertaking and involved in the purchase of the cotton from the farmers, is the custodian of the public money. The amount of sale of cotton bales in this case is lying in the bank. The amount will carry some interest. The Court at the time of adjudication of the matter will have to pass an order with regard to the disposal of the money. It is seen that the accused persons did not make any application for payment of money to them. It is their contention that they are the exclusive owners of the cotton bales. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pusad has taken all the facts into consideration and in his discretion allowed the application. The learned Judge, considering the seriousness of the matter, imposed appropriate conditions.
17] The question that needs to be addressed is whether this order is in any manner is prejudicial to the interest of the accused persons. In my view, the order will not cause any prejudice to the accused persons. The C.C.I. is a Government of India Undertaking. The Court has directed the responsible officer of C.C.I. to furnish an undertaking for return of the money as and when ordered by the Court. The submission of an undertaking is a condition precedent for release of the money to the C.C.I. In my opinion, the view taken by the learned Judge that the C.C.I. being a public undertaking concerned with the public money cannot be denied the benefit of the money, is just and reasonable. I, therefore, do not find any substance in the application as well as in the petition.
18] The grievance made by the petitioners that they were not heard is ill-founded, because by that time, they were not the accused before the learned Additional Sessions Judge. It is seen that the application made by the petitioner No.2 for release of the amount seized from him, was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge by his order dated 27th June, 2016. The grievance made by them that the amount deposited by them is shown to have been seized during the course of investigation under the seizure memos can be taken care of at the stage of final adjudication of the matter. The disbursal of the amount to the C.C.I. during the pendency of trial does not mean that the Court has finally adjudicated upon the issue and found the C.C.I. entitled to get the amount. The Court would be required to adjudicate upon this issue and entitlement of the money either by the informant or by the concerned accused persons. Therefore, I do not see any substance in the grievance made by the applicants as well as by the petitioners.
19] During the pendency of the proceeding, I have called the report of the learned Judge to place on record the progress made in the trial. The progress report placed on record initially by the in-charge District Judge-2 and Additional Sessions Judge, Pusad dated 3rd February 2023 and 16th February, 2023 is not satisfactory. It appears that the District Judge-2 and Additional Sessions Judge, Pusad has not taken steps to dispose of this more than 10 years old matter on priority basis. The explanation sought to be placed on record is nothing but an attempt to hide the failure to dispose of the matter. It is not acceptable.
20] The learned District Judge-2 and Additional Sessions Judge, Pusad in the facts and circumstances is directed to dispose of this trial within six months from the date of the receipt of this order. The learned Judge shall conduct this trial on day-to-day basis. The accused persons and the learned Prosecutor in-charge of the case shall extend the fullest cooperation to the learned Judge. If the learned Judge finds that there is no cooperation from the accused, the learned Judge can explore the possibility of cancelling the bail granted to them. Similarly, when there is no progress by the prosecution, the learned Judge can explore the possibility of saddling the heavy costs. The learned Judge shall ensure that through the process of the Court, the presence of all the accused be secured. The charge in the case be framed at the earliest. It is made clear that failure to comply with this order by all concerned would be viewed seriously.
21] In view of the above, the writ petition and the application stand dismissed. Rule stands discharged.