1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3145 of 2009 (Sow. Kanchan Sangappa Hagagunde vs. The State of Maharashtra and another) -------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders Mr. A.H.Kapadia, Advocate, for the applicant. Mr. K.M.Suryawanshi, APP for respondent State. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE: 24/9/2009 P.C.:- 1. Heard learned Counsel for the accused/applicant extensively. Learned A.P.P. tendered report of the investigator. 2. The applicant, a lady, conducts a fair price shop. In the process she was required to distribute food-grains to the labourers under Government Employment Guarantee Scheme, based on proper permits. The demand, as per the statement, was raised by the concerned officials, the 2 food-grains used to be issued and collected by the present applicant and it was expected to be distributed to the needy labourers, to the intended beneficiaries. This has been systematically scuttled for personal gains. 3. In a racket, to which the present accused/applicant is also a party, the records and the demand letters are manipulated. Where 100 labourers were required only 2000 kgs of wheat, surreptitiously the letter is interpolated to make it 12,000 kgs and such excessive figures have appeared in not any one document but in four or five such documents. 4. It is ultimately revealed that the present accused/applicant has withdrawn 1031 quintals of food grains which is in excess to her entitlement. She withdrew 2322 quintal of rice as against demand of 424.9 quintal and such excess withdrawal is of 1897 3 quintals is not accounted for. 5. It was primarily a concert mainly with extraneous consideration that has been systematically played by the officials in the Tehsil with the present accused/applicant and the labourers are deprived of their legitimate gains and the Government is duped. A big question mark to the very scheme is projected by such activities of the applicant who is a fair price shop keeper. 6. The accused/applicant, may be not keeping well, for that care can be taken by the investigator, including the jail authorities. The registers in which such entries are made by the accused/applicant have not seen light of the day, they are to be taken charge which only be facilitated in terms of custodial interrogation. The disposal of huge quantity of rice could not be simply by single movement but it was to save traders and 4 beneficiaries. The Apex Court in the matter of C.B.I. Vs.Anil Sharma ( (1997) 7 SCC 187) has observed, "Custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation- oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favourable order under section 438 of the Code. In case like this effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disintering many useful information and also materials which would have been cancelled. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The Court has to presume that responsible Police Officers would conduct themselves in a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of disintering offences would not conduct themselves as offenders. " 7. Taking survey of the matter, there is no case in terms 5 of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. Application rejected. 8. Time to surrender till 5th Oct.,2009 granted. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE ... agp/3145-09crapl