1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.216 OF 2001. PROF. ANAND S/O NARAYANRAO POHARKAR AND ONE VS LOKMAT NEWSPAPER CHARITABLE TRUST, LOKMAT AND OTHERS ______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Shri R. U. Gaikwad Advocate for the petitioners. Shri F. T. Mirza Advocate for the respondent no.1. Shri S. K. Mishra Advocate for respondent no.9. Smt. B. P. Maldhure, APP for respondent nos.10 and 11. CORAM : A.H. JOSHI AND U.V. BAKRE, JJ. DATE : 24th MARCH 2011. ORDER : (Per A. H. Joshi, J) 1. This Criminal Writ Petition is listed for final hearing. 2. Heard the parties for considerable time. 3. The petition contains the following prayers: i) to order C.B.I. enquiry into the scandal being carried out by respondents No.1 to 8 for collecting funds from the public on the pretext of helping Kargil conflict victims in order to unfold the truth and if found guilty, the respondents be punished. 2 ii) to grant interest at the rate of 18% p.a. on the amount collected and misused by the respondents No.1 to 9 and interest be directed to be deposited with Government. ii)a Issue suitable directions to respondent 1 and its trustees to transmit the entire amount of the Lokmat Kargil Shahid Sahayata Nidhi and the interest accrued thereon to respondent No.9 and further direct respondent No.9 to spend the same for the welfare of the families of the soldiers and officers who died on the Kargil Conflict. ii)b Restrain respondent 1 and it's trustees from using any portion of the Nidhi for any purpose other than stated in prayer clause ii)a above. iii) to issue directions against the respondents No.1 to 9 that they should file all relevant accounts and material documents relating to the said Collection of Charity of nation made by the public on all the occasions. [Quoted from page 5 of criminal writ petition paper book] 4. During oral submissions, learned Advocate for the petitioners, Shri R. U. Gaikwad submitted that in view of the fact that during pendency of the Criminal Writ Petition, with 3 the leave of the Court, the amount collected by the respondent – trust was utilized for raising Hostels for wards of soldiers at various places, now other directions sought by the petitioners may not be effective. He further states that it also not necessary to issue the direction to hold an enquiry by the C.B.I. 5. He further submits that however, appropriate authority under Bombay Public Trust Act can be directed to examine the matter from the point of view as to whether any offence is committed and take appropriate steps. 6. In order to substantiate the prayer for writ of mandamus, this Court has called upon the learned Advocate for the petitioners to advance submissions and pin-pointedly lay hands on any provision of law, violation whereof has a penal consequence. According to the learned Advocate Mr. Gaikwad, the offence of collecting funds by totally erroneous representation would amount to cheating under Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code and would be punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned Advocate for the petitioners is unable to show from any averment contained in the petition which would depict deceit, fraudulent or dishonest inducement to the petitioners to deliver any property or money or any act or omission, which would result in describing the offence of cheating as spelt out from Section of the Indian Penal Code relied upon by him. Any wrongful loss to the petitioners or a gain dishonestly derived by the accused persons is also not 4 described. 7. In so far as the offence under the provisions of Bombay Public Trust Act is concerned, the learned Advocate Mr. R.U. Gaikwad for the petitioners fairly concedes that he is not in a position to lay hand on any provision contained in the Bombay Public Trust Act, as a penal provision which is violated. 8. In the background discussed herein before, we are of the considered view that the present writ petition, though filed as Criminal Writ Petition and though pending for a long time under the same title, as the petitioners have failed to show the pleadings relating to commission of any offence, categorization of the petition as a Criminal Writ Petition cannot be continued any further. 9. In the result, writ petition will have to be re- registered as Civil Writ Petition. 10. Upon such registration, let the petition be listed before the appropriate Bench for hearing and disposal according to law. Judge Judge |muley| 5