cases, which too were non-MICR cheques, which had ceased to be valid. The enterer/authoriser officials of the Bank have confirmed that they had carried out the transactions without cheques in physical form being presented, merely on instructions of Kamal Hasan, the named accused. The report specifically states that staff negligence, complicity and accountability for lapses is yet to be fixed, for which further interrogation of the concerned officials is in progress. We are aware of the fact that the petitioner holds a high post, being Vice Chancellor of the University, but it is really appalling that the petitioner nor any one in the University, reported about fraudulent withdrawal of huge sum of moneys from the account of the University, that too not by single transaction but by as many as 385 transactions extending over a period of three years. We fail to understand how the said fraud was not discovered even at the time of the audit of the accounts of the University. It is not disputed before us that Rajesh Kumar, Accountant of the University, the named accused in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has stated that the petitioner had full knowledge of all the transactions. Looking to the magnitude of the fraud, we of the opinion that the same was not possible unless there was a deep rooted conspiracy between the officials of the University and the Bank. Thus, the nexus of the officials of the Bank as well as the University, if any, with these transactions is a matter of investigation, which is still under progress. In order to establish the link, it is claimed by the Investigating Officer that he needs custody of the petitioner.
