Maheshanand Giri and Others vs State of Rajasthan and Another

H.R. Panwar, J.—By the instant miscellaneous petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C., the order dt. 13.09.2006 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner (for short, "the trial Court" hereinafter) has been challenged by the petitioners.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. Carefully gone through the order impugned.

It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the appointments of the Trustees are under the provisions of the Public Trusts Act and the petitioners have rightly been appointed as the trustees by the person authorised in this respect; they are the registered trustees and are discharging their functions as the trustees of the trust. It is further contended that as to whether the petitioners have been rightly appointed as the trustees of the trust, is a question to be examined under the provisions of the Public Trust Act by Civil Court. If at all any person is aggrieved by the appointment of the trustees then it is always open for him to raise such objection before the registration of Trust deed. More so, in the instant case, parties have already approached the Civil Court wherein these are the issues to be examined.

I have carefully gone through the material on record. It appears that on the death of Mahamandaleshwar Sunder Giri, petitioner No. 1 Maheshanand Giri was appointed as the Mahamandelshwar and he appointed the trustees. It appears from the impugned order that when the original trustees expired, as per the provisions of the Public Trust Act, new trustees could have been inducted and for such induction, Mahamandaleshwar has authorised the petitioners to work as the trustees and whatever acts have been done by the petitioners, the same have been done while discharging the duties as per the Public Trust Act. In this case, after through investigation, the Police submitted the final report, however, the trial Court took the cognizance. The reasons assigned by the trial Court are contrary to the provisions of the Public Trust Act. In this view of the matter, in my view, the impugned order cannot be sustained and it is liable to be set aside.

Consequently, the criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed and the impugned order dt. 13.09.2006 passed by the trial Court is set aside.