JANARDAN BANDUJI DIGHE Vs. VISHWAKARMA MANDIR TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition filed by the two original accused in Criminal Case No. 64 of 1985 pending on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nasik. The petitioner No. 2 is the son of the petitioner No. 1. The complaint was filed by Shri Vishwakarma Mandir Trust and its Trustees. The basic allegation against the petitioner No. 1 being that he is the Chairman of the Trust and that he is alleged to have purchased a property named Bhidewada which is adjacent to the building of the Trust in the name of the petitioner No. 2, who is his son. The allegation in the complaint is to the effect that the Trust had paid an amount of Rs. 5,000/- against the purchase of this property and that the petitioner No. 1 who is alleged to have told the trustees that the property is purchased in the name of the Trust and that only at a subsequent point of time they came to know that the petitioner No. 1 has purchased the property in the name of his own son and that he has also recovered the rents of the same which ought to have come to the Trust and misappropriated the rents in question. The gravemen of the charge appears to be that the petitioner No. 1 misused his position in his capacity as Chairman of the Trust and purchased the property in his son's name.

(2.) It is necessary to state at this stage itself that the complaint is totally silent with regard to the most important ingredient viz., the question as to whether the Trust funds were utilised by the Petitioner No. 1 and if so, to what extent and in what manner. It is hardly permissible for a criminal proceeding to be sustained on the basis of allegations that are vague and incomplete and wanting in material particulars.

(3.) Mr. Niteen Jamdar, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners has filed a certified copy of the death certificate that the petitioner No. 1 died on 5-4-1989. Under these circumstances, the case as against petitioner No. 1 abates. The only point argued by Mr. Jamdar is as to whether the criminal proceeding can survive against accused No. 2. Undoubtedly, if a case has been made out against accused No. 2 and if there is sufficient material against him, there is no difficulty whatsoever in the proceeding being sustainable against accused No. 2 even if original accused No. 1 has died.