The Deputy Charity Commissioner lacks jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. as it is not classified as a court under the Trust Act.

JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith with the consent of the parties. Heard both sides finally at the admission stage.

2. Heard learned counsel Mr. Dixit for the petitioners and learned counsel Mr.Vani for contesting respondents .Other respondents are served but none appeared on their behalf.

3. This petition is directed against order dated 25.07.2024 passed below Exhibit-115 by learned Deputy Commissioner, Jalgaon in Change report No.1199 of 2012, rejecting the application of the petitioners filed under Section 340 of Cr.P.C soliciting action against the respondent no.2 for giving false evidence and violating the order passed below Exhibit-106.

4. Respondent no.2 is the reporting trustee who has filed Change report No. 1199 of 2012. The petitioners and others are the objectors who are contesting the change report. It is informed that matter is at the stage of final arguments.

5. Petitioners had submitted application Exhibit-106 under Order 11 rule 14 of C.P.C. seeking production of the documents enumerated in paragraph no. 2 which were in the custody of the respondent no.2. It was partly allowed and the respondent no.2 was directed to produce the documents mentioned in paragraph no.2 (c) of the application vide order dated 06.04.2021. In pursuance of that order respondent no.2 submitted pursis at Exhibit-112 informing the commissioner that the document which was directed to be produced was misplaced from the record and he was unable to produce it.

6. In collateral proceedings bearing Change Report No. 1224 of 2012 the respondent No.2 was reporting trustee and he was a witness. In the cross-examination certain admissions were given by him on 07.03.2022 and 13.12.2022 pertaining to the possession of the record of the trust and the preservation of the record. In the wake of those admissions application Exhibit-115 was submitted by the petitioners under section 340 of Cr.P.C for taking action against the respondent no. 2 under Sections 174 and 193 of I.P.C. It was contended that pursis at Exhibit-112 filed by respondent no.2 is in defiance of order passed below Exhibit-106. It was a false pursis being filed to suppress material facts.

7. Learned counsel Mr. Dixit appearing for the petitioners submits that specific admissions were extracted from the respondent no. 2 in the collateral proceedings. Hence, the pursis is ex-facie false and misleading. He would submit that there is a candid admission of the respondent no.2 that no record was lost or destroyed and record was being preserved since 1997. Under these circumstances, pursis at Exhibit-112 would amount to giving false evidence and suppressing material facts. It is vehemently submitted that Deputy Charity Commissioner has power to take cognizance of the application of the petitioners submitted under Section 340 of Cr.P.C and to conduct inquiry into the overt act of respondent no.2. The proceedings are being quasi-judicial in nature, Deputy Charity Commissioner vests with all necessary powers contemplated under Section 195 as well as 340 of Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that the findings recorded in the impugned order are perverse and unsustainable.

8. Per contra, learned counsel Mr.Wani appearing for respondent no.2 would submit that Deputy Charity Commissioner is not a court either within the meaning of Section 2(4) of Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950(hereinafter referred to as 'Trust Act') as well as Cr.P.C. He would rely on the judgment of co-ordinate bench in the matter of Vitthoba Balaji Ghodke and Others vs. Balkrishna Ganesh Bhalerao and Others reported in 1967 Mh.L.J. 224. It is further submitted that pursis was filed on 27.12.2021 and cross-examination was conducted on 07.03.2022. There was no specific question asked and no specific admission extracted so as to infer culpability of the respondent no.2. It is submitted that impugned order is reasonable and no interference is called for.

9. I have considered rival submissions of the parties.

10. It is apposi