LawforAll

advocatemmmohan

My photo
since 1985 practicing as advocate in both civil & criminal laws

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - SHARE THE KNOWLEDGE

Tuesday, September 11, 2012

In view of our order dismissing the appeal, the interim protection granted by this Court on 23.09.2011 shall stand vacated and the appellant is granted two weeks time from today to surrender and seek regular bail. It is also made clear that the conclusion arrived at by the courts below including the present order relates only to eligibility or otherwise of the relief of anticipatory bail and the trial Court is free to decide the bail application de hors to the above observation and in accordance with law.


                                                                   REPORTABLE

                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                      1


                   2 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.   1376   OF 2012


                3 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 7337 of 2011






Maruti Nivrutti Navale                          .... Appellant(s)

            Versus

State of Maharashtra & Anr.                     .... Respondent(s)




                               J U D G M E N T

P. Sathasivam, J.
1)    Leave granted.
2)    This appeal is directed  against  the  final  order  dated  19.09.2011
passed by the High Court of Judicature at  Bombay  in  Criminal  Application
No. 786 of 2011  whereby  the  High  Court  dismissed  the  application  for
anticipatory bail filed by the appellant herein.
3)    Brief facts:
(a)   The appellant  is  the  Founder  President  and  Managing  Trustee  of
Sinhgad Technical Education Society, Pune (in  short  ‘the  Society’).   The
Society  is  engaged  in  imparting  formal  and   informal   education   by
establishing various schools, colleges and  institutions  in  the  State  of
Maharashtra.  Respondent No.1 is the State and Chainsukh Sobhachand  Gandhi-
Respondent No.2 herein is the original  Complainant  and  is  a  Trustee  of
Pawan  Gandhi  Charity  Trust  (in  short  ‘the  Trust’)  working  for   the
upliftment  of  economically  and  socially  impoverished  sections  of  the
society.
(b)   Respondent  No.  2  was  running  a  school  on  land  bearing  Survey
No.154/6/1 admeasuring 57 acres situated  at  Ambavet,  Tal.  Mulshi,  Dist.
Pune, on which a building in the area of 650 sq. mts. was  constructed.   In
the year 2008, it was decided to run the  School  with  the  help  of  other
educational institutions by leasing out  the  property.   Respondent  No.  2
approached the appellant herein for the  same.   The  appellant  herein  has
also shown interest in acquiring lease hold rights in order  to  run  school
activities in the said property.  Pursuant to the  same,  negotiations  took
place and it was offered to lease out the said school building for a  period
of 87 years and to sell the other property, viz., land  bearing  Survey  No.
165/1 admeasuring 8500 sq. mts., Survey No. 162 admeasuring 7600  sq.  mts.,
Survey No. 160/1 admeasuring 1900 sq. mts. and Survey  No.  161  admeasuring
21300  sq.  mts.  situated  at  Ambavet,  Tal.  Mulshi,  Dist.  Pune  for  a
consideration of Rs. 3,50,00,000/-.
(c)   Accordingly, two separate Memorandums  of  Understanding  (MoUs)  were
executed on 10.05.2008.   Both  the  memorandums  were  duly  notarized  and
registered.  On 13.05.2008, in  order  to  realize  the  object,  the  Trust
leased out the said property to the Society for a period of 2 years  and  11
months commencing from 15.04.2008 and expiring on 09.03.2011 by  way  of  an
interim arrangement for an amount of Rs.  1/-  towards  lease  fee  for  the
entire duration of the lease granted.  This deed was  duly  registered  with
the office of sub-Registrar, Mulshi (Paud) at S.No. 3701/2008.
(d)   On 19.02.2011,  the  appellant-Society  received  a  legal  notice  to
remove the dead stock and articles kept in the  school  within  4  days  and
further to vacate the school and to handover the  possession  in  favour  of
the Trust alleging breach of the  clauses  mentioned  in  lease  deed  dated
13.05.2008. By reply dated  07.03.2011,  the  appellant-Society  denied  the
said allegations.
(e)   The Trust filed an application under Section 41E of the Bombay  Public
Trust  Act,  1950  before  the  Joint  Charity  Commissioner,  Pune  seeking
prohibitory orders against the appellant-Society.
(f)   Aggrieved by the inaction of the  Trust,  the  appellant-Society  also
filed two separate suits bearing Special Civil Suit bearing  Nos.  1146  and
1147 of 2011 before the Civil Court, Pune.
(g)   On 20.07.2011, respondent No.2  filed  a  complaint  with  the  Deccan
Police Station, Pune under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 471 read with  Section
34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 which  was  registered  as  S.No.  168  of
2011.
(h)   Against  the  said  complaint,  the  appellant  filed  an  application
bearing No. 2651 of 2011 before the  Court  of  Additional  Sessions  Judge,
Pune for grant  of  anticipatory  bail.   By  order  dated  29.08.2011,  the
Sessions Judge dismissed the said application.
(i)    Aggrieved  by  the  said  order,  the  appellant  preferred  Criminal
Application No. 786 of 2011 before the High Court.  By impugned order  dated
19.09.2011, the High Court dismissed  the  said  application.   Against  the
said order, the appellant has filed this appeal  by  way  of  special  leave
petition.
4)    Heard Mr. Mukul Rohtagi and Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned  senior  counsel
for the appellant and Mr. Chinmoy Khaldkar, learned counsel  for  Respondent
No.1-State and Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel for Respondent  No.  2-
Complainant.
5)    The only point  for  consideration  in  this  appeal  is  whether  the
appellant has made out a case for grant of anticipatory bail  under  Section
438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1908 (in short ‘the Code’).
6)    Inasmuch as the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune  in  the  order  dated
29.08.2011 and the  High  Court  in  the  impugned  order  dated  19.09.2011
adverted to all the factual details relating to  the  appellant-accused  and
the Respondent No. 1-State and Respondent No.  2-Complainant,  there  is  no
need to traverse the same  once  again  except  certain  aspects  which  are
essential for  the  disposal  of  the  present  appeal.   According  to  the
Complainant/respondent No.2 herein – Pawan Gandhi  Charity  Trust  had  been
established in the memory of his son and the Trust had a  land  on  which  a
building was constructed for running a school.  The appellant claims  to  be
the founder President and Managing Trustee  of  the  said  Society  and  the
Trust had a land bearing Survey No. 154/6/1 admeasuring 57  acres  on  which
building in the area of 650 sq. mts. was  constructed.   An  English  Medium
School was started in the building in  2005  known  as  Loyala  School.   In
March, 2008, it was offered to lease out the  said  school  building  for  a
period of 87 years and also to sell other  property  of  the  Trust  to  the
Society.   Based  on  the   negotiations,   two   separate   Memorandum   of
Understandings (MoUs) dated 10.05.2008 were signed between the parties.
7)    It is the claim of the  Complainant-respondent  No.2  herein  that  on
13.05.2008, a lease deed for a period of 35  months  w.e.f.  15.04.2008  was
executed and registered between the parties and it was  agreed  not  to  act
upon the two MoUs.  On the expiry of the lease period  i.e.  on  09.03.2011,
the Society was to handover the possession of  the  said  building  and  the
land to the Trust.
8)    It  is  the  stand  of  the  first  respondent-State  and  the  second
respondent-Complainant that the present appellant made a forgery in  further
lease deed dated 07.03.2011 pertaining to  the  granting  of  lease  for  87
years without the consent of the Complainant.  It is  also  stated  that  on
the  same  date,   the   appellant   also   made   a   forgery   by   making
additions/alterations in the original draft agreement for  lease  which  was
prepared at the time of executing the MoU and got it franked.   It  is  also
their grievance that the document was notarized in the year  2008  and  even
in the said notarized document, forgery was committed by the appellant.   It
is the contention of the  Complainant  that  on  the  basis  of  the  forged
document, the appellant asserted his claim over the property.
9)    During the course of hearing, Mr. Rohtagi, learned senior counsel  for
the appellant by taking us through the MoUs and  lease  deed  and  also  the
corrections in those documents submitted that those  corrections  have  been
made with the consent of the Complainant and according to  him,  no  forgery
has been committed as claimed by  the  respondents.   He  pointed  out  that
inasmuch as the sale deed could not take  place  and  the  property  of  the
Trust could be leased out for a period of more  than  3  years  without  the
permission of the Charity Commissioner, the lease deed for a  period  of  35
months  was  executed  and  registered  as  stop-gap  arrangement  with   an
understanding that the Trust would approach the concerned Assistant  Charity
Commissioner for necessary permission and, thereafter, the lease deed for  a
period of 87 years in respect of the  school  building  and  the  sale  deed
about the larger property could be executed and registered.
10)   In the course of argument, learned counsel  appearing  for  the  State
vehemently opposed  the  claim  of  anticipatory  bail  and  contended  that
custodial interrogation of the appellant is necessary because he has  forged
several documents and also submitted  false  information  to  the  Education
Department while  obtaining  permission  for  running  the  school.   It  is
further pointed out that he has also produced copies of false document.   It
is his claim  that  unless  custodial  interrogation  of  the  appellant  is
granted, it would not be possible to seize all  those  documents  from  him.
In other words, according to the State,  the  appellant  has  committed  not
only the offence of forgery in respect of private documents  but  also  made
false representations and committed offence  of  cheating  by  giving  false
information to the Education Department, thus committed an offence not  only
against the State but also against the public in general.
11)   Like the counsel  appearing  for  the  State,  Mr.  Prashant  Bhushan,
learned  counsel  for  the  second  respondent-Complainant  by  drawing  our
attention to various materials including corrections in  the  documents  and
several communications with the  Educational  Authorities  as  well  as  the
letter dated 04.07.2012 of the Deputy Collector,  Maval  Sub-division,  Pune
addressed to  Senior  Police  Inspector,  Bundgarden  Police  Station,  Pune
submitted that in view of the conduct and  involvement  in  various  heinous
offences, the appellant is not entitled indulgence by  this  Court  for  any
relief.
12)   As observed above, all the three counsel  appearing  for  the  parties
took us through MoUs, lease  deed  and  other  correspondence/communications
with the Educational Authorities  as  well  as  the  report  of  the  Deputy
Collector, Pune, to Senior  Police  Inspector,  Bundgarden  Police  Station,
Pune.  It is also relevant to  point  out  that  all  these  materials  were
scrutinized/analyzed by the Additional Sessions Judge,  Pune  and  the  High
Court while considering the application for anticipatory bail.  It  is  true
that the parties have also approached the Civil Court for  various  reliefs.
At the same time, as pointed out by counsel for the  State  and  the  second
respondent-Complainant,   considering   the    seriousness    relating    to
corrections/additions/alterations made  in  various  documents,  information
furnished to the Educational  Authorities  which,  according  to  them,  are
incorrect, we are of the view that in order to bring out  all  the  material
information  and  documents,  custodial  interrogation  is  required,   more
particularly, to ascertain in respect of the documents  which  were  alleged
to have been forged  and  fabricated.   In  the  said  documents  and  other
materials which are in the possession of the appellant  and  the  allegation
against him  that  he  has  made  false  representation  before  the  Public
Authority  on  the  basis  of  those  documents  for   obtaining   necessary
permission, as pointed out by the State, in order to  secure  possession  of
those documents, custodial interrogation is  necessary.   For  this  reason,
the Additional Sessions Judge and the High  Court  rejected  the  claim  for
anticipatory bail.
13)   In addition to the same, it is stated by the  respondents  that  after
the order of this Court dated 23.09.2011 granting  interim  protection,  the
appellant  has  misused  his  liberty   in   creating   hindrance   to   the
investigation  and  continues  to  scuttle  it  and  also  intimidating  and
pressurizing the Complainant as well as the prosecution witnesses.
14)   In the light of the above  discussion  and  in  view  of  the  mandate
prescribed in Section 438 of the Code, we fully agree  with  the  conclusion
arrived at by the Additional Sessions Judge and the High Court in  rejecting
the relief of anticipatory bail.  Consequently, the  appeal  fails  and  the
same is dismissed.
15)   In view of our order dismissing the  appeal,  the  interim  protection
granted by this Court on 23.09.2011 shall stand vacated  and  the  appellant
is granted two weeks time from today to surrender  and  seek  regular  bail.
It is also made clear that the conclusion arrived at  by  the  courts  below
including the present order relates only to eligibility or otherwise of  the
relief of anticipatory bail and the trial Court is free to decide  the  bail
application de hors to the above observation and  in  accordance  with  law.






                             ...…………….…………………………J.


                                 (P. SATHASIVAM)








                             ..…....…………………………………J.


                              (RANJAN GOGOI)


NEW DELHI;
SEPTEMBER 7, 2012.






















|                     |                      |                     |



   -----------------------
12