8. On the other hand, Mr. S. G. Bhobe, learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondents/State invited attention of this Court to the notarized power of attorney dated 29.11.2007, sale deed dated 29.7.2010, letter dated 13.8.2012 addressed by the co-accused purchaser to the Special Land Acquisition Officer, an affidavit sworn by the said co-accused purchaser and submitted to the Income Tax Authorities and other such documents. On the basis of the contents of the said documents, it was submitted that the investigating officer was able to reach upto a certain stage in the investigation but to take it further, co-operation of the applicant was necessary and that for the said reason his custody was necessary. He submitted that the applicant had not co-operated with the investigating officer and that he was stonewalling the process. By inviting attention to the contents of the documents, it was contended that even after notarized power of attorney was executed on 29.11.2007, the applicant very much claimed to be in touch with the said Laxmibai Madval and that therefore, it was necessary to interrogate the applicant to unearth the complete conspiracy and the manner in which the offence was committed, as this was a serious case of large scale defrauding of the Government exchequer. It is submitted that there are instances of this nature in
