to the record of the company. He claims to deal in the business of sale and purchase of old four wheelers. Therefore, no semblance of credence can be attached to the allegations in the FIR. Secondly, Mr. Thakare would urge since the prosecution alleges the commission of offences punishable under Information Technology Act, 2000, the applicant cannot be prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 379, 381, 409 and 420 of the Penal Code on the strength of the same set of allegations. To buttress this submission Mr. Thakare placed reliance on a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Gagan Harsh Sharma and ors. vs. The State of Maharshtra and ors.1 . Thirdly, Mr. Thakare would urge, the sequence of events and the time-lag between the date of resignation and the lodging of FIR unmistakably indicate that the applicant is being hounded by the former employer. Resignation tendered by the applicant on 1st December, 2018 was accepted after 39 days on 8th January, 2019, without any demur. The FIR came to be lodged on 9th August, 2022. This delay itself erodes the credibility of the prosecution version. Lastly, Mr. Thakare submitted, the very forensic audit reports on which the prosecution banks upon indicate that it was impossible to
