Allowed

Kishore S/O. Govindrao Sontakke v. State of Maharashtra Thr. P.S.O. Ganeshpeth Nagpur

Bombay HC6 Apr 2017ABA/844/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court navigator bench confirmed interim anticipatory bail granted to Kishor, alleging misappropriation and tampering with digital records. The court found prima facie doubts about the applicant's exact role due to insufficient details in the enquiry report regarding forged digital entries.

What did the court decide?

Confirmed interim anticipatory bail granted on 27.12.2016 with an additional condition to attend the police station every Sunday between 10.00 am and 12.00 pm till charge-sheet is filed.

Kishore S/O. Govindrao Sontakke Vs State of Maharashtra… — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

1 aba844.16

¶2

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

¶3

Criminal Application (ABA) No. 844 of 2016

¶4

Kishor v. State of Maharashtra

¶5

¶6

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

¶7

Court's or Judge's orders

¶8

¶9

Shri M. P. Lala , Advocate for applicant Shri A. M. Kadukar, APP for respondent-State

¶10

Coram : S. B. Shukre, J

¶11

Dated : April 6, 2017

¶12

Heard. Perused the First Information Report; reply of the case diary and case diary.

¶13

The offences alleged against this applicant are punishable under Sections 489, 477 (a) of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 43 and 6 of the Information & Tchnology Act. The allegations, in brief, are that the applicant being cashier, was entrusted with the job of accepting the statements of accounts in electronic form maintained on ETI machine by the respective conductors of the MSRTC Buses and making digital entries of these statements of accounts in the Account Book of the MSRTC. But, this applicant did not perform his duties honestly and by making manipulations in the statements of accounts that he received from the conductors, the applicant made entries of different amounts so as to wrongfully gain from the difference in the amounts and thus, he committed misappropriation, criminal breach of trust and other offences relating to intentionally tampering with the digital record of the office.

¶14

2 aba844.16

¶15

In such a case, it would be necessary for the Investigating Officer to collect a detailed evidence regarding the amounts shown in various statements of accounts maintained on ETI machine on particular dates and routes as also the amounts which were actually entered by alleged manipulation by the applicant in digital record of the MSRTC. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor states that a detailed enquiry has been made and it is reflected that such misdeeds are committed by the applicant.

¶16

I have gone through this enquiry report and I find it very difficult to ascertain therefrom as to how the entries and what kind of entries were falsely taken in the digital record of the MSRTC by the applicant. This enquiry report only states that the material witnesses of the Corporation who were conductors on various buses have stated that they had faithfully taken the entries about payments of toll tax made by them from time to time. No details of actual payments made by the conductors have been given in the enquiry report. It is pointed out to me that there used to be three shifts and applicant was on duty in second shift from 9 am to 5 pm and the other cashiers who were on duty in other two shifts may be responsible for wrongful entries. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that involvement of other cashiers cannot be ruled out at this stage.

¶17

With the nature of evidence so far collected as against this applicant, I am of the view that prima facie there is a doubt about the exact role played by this applicant and as such, I am of the further view that the applicant deserves to be granted confirmed anticipatory bail.

¶18

Application is allowed. Interim anticipatory bail granted to the applicant by this Court on 27.12.2016 is hereby confirmed on the same conditions with the addition of

¶19

3 aba844.16

¶20

the condition that the applicant shall continue to attend the police Station on every Sunday between 10.00 am and 12.00 pm till charge-sheet is filed.

¶21

Application is disposed of.

¶22

JUDGE

¶23

joshi

Kishore S/O. Govindrao Sontakke v. State of Maharashtra Thr. P.S.O. Ganeshpeth Nagpur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kishore S/O. Govindrao Sontakke v. State of Maharashtra Thr. P.S.O. Ganeshpeth Nagpur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravi S/O. Kumarswamy Suramwar (in Jail) Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Police Station Officer Police Station Ballarpur Dist. Chandrapur

Sachin S/O. Vijay Yelmule (in Jail) Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Police Inspector Police Station Durgapur Dist. Chandrapur

Saraswati Umraoji Wasnik (in Jail) Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. Police Station Officer, Police Station Kalamna Nagpur

Ramdayal S/O. Manikram Patle (in Jail) Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. P.S.O. Gagazari Dist. Gondia

Ramkisan Govardhandas Bhutada and Another Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. Police Station Officer Khamgaon City Police Station Dist. Buldhana

Rajratan @ Raju Premratan Binnani Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Police Station Khamgaon Dist. Buldhana