Allowed

Santosh S/O Hariprasad Zunzunwala v. State of Maharashtra through Pso Akot

Bombay HC5 Oct 2012ABA/177/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In six connected criminal applications for bail arising out of an FIR regarding alleged loan waivers and irregularities at Akot Urban Co-operative Bank, the Court granted bail and directed release on personal bond or cash deposit.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicants on bail in sum of Rs. 15,000 each with surety or cash deposit, directed to attend Investigating Officer office and prohibiting arrest for 3 months without 72-hour notice.

Santosh S/O Hariprasad Zunzunwala Vs State of Maharashtra… — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

1 aba171.12+7.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ABA) NO. 171 OF 2012

¶4

(JAYANT MARUTI TALMALE..VS.. STATE OF MAH. THR. P.S.O. P.S.AKOT, DIST. AKOLA)

¶5

WITH

¶6

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ABA) NO. 177 OF 2012

¶7

(SANTOSH HARIPRASAD ZUNZUNWALA..VS.. STATE OF MAH. THR. P.S.O. P.S.AKOT, DIST. AKOLA) WITH

¶8

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ABA) NO. 220 OF 2012

¶9

(MANOJ UTTAMRAO KHANDARE..VS.. STATE OF MAH. THR. P.S.O. P.S.AKOT, DIST. AKOLA) WITH

¶10

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ABA) NO. 221 OF 2012

¶11

(GAJANAN JUGDEORAO ZAMARE..VS.. STATE OF MAH. THR. P.S.O. P.S.AKOT, DIST. AKOLA)

¶12

WITH

¶13

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ABA) NO. 222 OF 2012

¶14

(SAU. BHARTI GAJANANRAO GAWANDE..VS.. STATE OF MAH. THR. P.S.O. P.S.AKOT, DIST. AKOLA) WITH

¶15

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ABA) NO. 223 OF 2012

¶16

(LAXMIKANT PURAMJI PISE..VS.. STATE OF MAH. THR. P.S.O. P.S.AKOT, DIST. AKOLA)

¶17

WITH

¶18

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ABA) NO. 224 OF 2012

¶19

(VASANT MAHADEO BODKHE..VS.. STATE OF MAH. THR. P.S.O. P.S.AKOT, DIST. AKOLA) WITH

¶20

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ABA) NO. 226 OF 2012

¶21

(RAJKUMAR MANIKRAO MANGLE & ORS..VS.. STATE OF MAH. THR. P.S.O. P.S.AKOT, DIST. AKOLA) WITH

¶22

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ABA) NO. 286 OF 2012

¶23

(MOHAN KRISHNARAO DESHMUKH & OTH..VS.. STATE OF MAH. THR. P.S.O.AKOT, DIST. AKOLA)

¶24

¶25

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶26

Court's or Judge's orders

¶27

¶28

Mr.M.V.Samarth, Advocate for Applicant in ABA No.171/12. Mr.A.S.Mardikar, Adv. for Applicant in ABA No.177/12 Mr.A.M.Ghare, Advocate for Applicants in ABA No.220,221,222,223,224 & 226/12.

¶29

Mr. A.M.Jaltare, Advocate for Applicants in ABA No.286/12. Mr. S.S.Doifode, A.P.P. for Respondent/ Sate.

¶30

CORAM : M.L.TAHALIYANI, J. DATED : OCTOBER 05, 2012.

¶31

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent/ State.

¶32

The applicants are apprehending arrest in Crime No. 68 of 2012 registered at Police Station, Akot of Akola

¶33

2 aba171.12+7.odt

¶34

district. There are three sets of applicants. One set of the applicants consists of Directors of Akot Urban Co-operative Bank. Another set of applicants consists of employees including Branch Managers of various branches of the Bank and third set consists of Administrator.

¶35

Before I proceed further it may be stated here that the bank had a regular Board of Directors before the Administrator was appointed. After certain complications the Administrator was appointed by the competent authority and thereafter a Board of Administrators was appointed. The Bank is at present in liquidation and Liquidator has been appointed. The allegations against the applicants, in brief, are as under :

¶36

There were two schemes floated by the Central Government :

¶37

(i) Waiver of agricultural loan,

¶38

(ii) Waiver of interest on agricultural loan.

¶39

It is alleged that the applicants had entered into conspiracy to waive the loans of the persons who were not entitled to get waiver under the said scheme floated by the Central Government. In all Rs.2,82,01,281/- were waived by way of loan waiver and Rs.1,50,84,137/- was the amount of waiver of the interest.

¶40

It is submitted on behalf of the Directors that the lists of borrowers, who were entitled for the benefit, were prepared by the various branches and that the Directors had personally nothing to do with the alleged irregularity. It is submitted that the documents were prepared as per the

¶41

3 aba171.12+7.odt

¶42

resolutions passed by the Board of Directors. The Administrator has submitted that he has nothing to do with both the lists and that the names of the beneficiaries were already approved and that he was instrumental in forwarding the same.

¶43

There is one more additional charge against the Administrator i.e. he was responsible for giving benefit to certain borrowers under One Time Settlement Scheme. It is stated that the loss caused to the bank in various one time settlements is about Rs.1,95,00,000/-.

¶44

It may be noted here that the offences registered by the police on the complaint made by the Special Auditor are punishable under Sections 468, 471, 406 and 409 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal code. It is submitted by learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Doifode that Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code has been added later on.

¶45

As far as charges of forgery are concerned, it is submitted by Mr. Doifode that the loans sanctioned for nonagricultural purposes were later on shown as loan for agricultural purposes and for that reason certain forged documents were used as genuine documents and therefore, Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code is applicable. As far as Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, it is submitted that employees of the Bank have committed criminal breach of trust in respect of certain amount, therefore, Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code has been applied.

¶46

4 aba171.12+7.odt

¶47

The alleged irregularities were detected during the course of audit conducted by one Mr. Deshpande during the period between 20^th July, 2009 to 6^th September, 2010. Audit was concluded on 31^st March, 2010 and report was submitted on 8^th November, 2010. An additional report indicating irregularities in the Bank was submitted on 6^th December, 2010. It appears that the complainant Mr. Salunke has filed the complaint at the instructions of some superior officer. It further appears from the documents that at one stage the first information report filed by Mr. Salunke was also questioned by his superior officer and he was called upon to explain as to why he had filed wrong first information report. If he does not submit the explanation necessary departmental enquiry would be initiated against him.

¶48

After having gone through the documents, I have come to a conclusion that there is dispute between the officers of the department. There is also a dispute between the Audit Department and the Co-operative Department. Record which is required to be scrutinized by the Investigating Officer is quite bulky. Though the first information report has been registered in the month of April, the Investigating Officer had not been able to tell as to who is primarily responsible for a particular forgery. There are number of documents which are alleged to have been forged. Those documents are in the custody of various branches. The documents are not in the custody of senior officers or the Board of Directors. Therefore, forgery, if any, must have been done by the employees on lower level may be at the instance of the superior officer. That part of the offences will have to be investigated. For that the Investigating Officer has to do

¶49

5 aba171.12+7.odt

¶50

some homework and he has to reach to some conclusion that as to who is primarily responsible for the particular act. There are so many acts and omissions. In the circumstances, putting all the applicants behind the bars at one time is of no use. It may satisfy the Police Officer that he had arrested all the accused named in the first information report. In my considered opinion, that will not serve the purpose of investigation. It may be noted here that the custody is meant for proper investigation and not for the satisfaction of opponent or the Investigating Officer.

¶51

In the present case, it is noted that the complainant has named all the Directors, Employees and Administrator and has stated that they are all responsible for the irregularities. It is also noted that this complaint is filed at the instance of the superior officers. There is no objectivity in the first information report. The first information report appears to be outcome of some groupism in the bank and the department. In the circumstances, the Investigating Officer has to be very careful and he has to be very discreet while investigating the case. When the allegations mentioned in the first information report are not within the personal knowledge of the complainant and they are based on the directions given by the superior officer it becomes duty of the Investigating Officer to objectively investigate the case and find out as to who is responsible for the particular act. As already stated, custody of all the applicants at one time is not going to help the prosecution. Considering the nature of the allegations and bulk of documents involved, the Investigating Officer is supposed to investigate the case by taking charge of the documents wholly or in installments. Unless some preliminary investigation is done it will be difficult to

¶52

6 aba171.12+7.odt

¶53

ascertain as to whose custodial interrogation is necessary for further investigation of the case. In the circumstances, I am of the view that following order would meet the ends of justice.

¶54

The applicants shall be released on bail in the sum of rupees fifteen thousand each with one solvent surety in the like amount or cash deposit of rupees fifteen thousand each in lieu of the solvent surety, in the event of their arrest in crime No. 68 of 2012 of Akot Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 468, 406, 409, 471 red with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶55

In addition to this, it is also directed that all the applicants shall attend the office of Investigating Officer on 14^th October, 2012 and thereafter shall continue to attend the office of the Investigating Officer whenever required by him for investigation of the case.

¶56

This order shall remain in force for three months from today. Thereafter the Investigating Officer shall not arrest any of the applicants without giving them individual notice of seventy two hours in writing.

¶57

The applications stand disposed of accordingly.

¶58

JUDGE

¶59

RRaut..

Santosh S/O Hariprasad Zunzunwala v. State of Maharashtra through Pso Akot

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh S/O Hariprasad Zunzunwala v. State of Maharashtra through Pso Akot

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Maharashtra through Additional Superintendent of Police (Anti Corruption Bureau) Nagpur Vs Shri Avinash S/O Omprakash Gonmode

State of Maharashtra through Additional Superintendent of Police (Anti Corruption Bureau) Nagpur Vs Shri Sanjay Rameshkumar Kesharwani

Sau. Leeni W/O Chandrakant Sardar and Another Vs Mr. Chandrakant S/O Haridas Sardar

Jayant Maruti Talmale Vs the State of Maharashtra through Pso Akot

Sau. Smita W/O Rajendra Tayde Vs Rajendra S/O Kisan Tayde

Gajanan S/O Jagdeorao Zamare Vs the State of Maharashtra through Pso Akot