1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ABA) NO. 11/2011 (Hitendra Daulat Kolhatkar .vs. State of Mah. Through PSO PS Chamorshi, Distt. Gadchiroli ) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's orders Mr. P.N. Upadhyay, Advocate for Applicant. Mr. S.S. Doifode, APP for Respondent. .......... CORAM : P.D. KODE, J. DATED : FEBRUARY 18, 2011 Heard. For the reasons recorded in the order dated 1.2.2011, an ad-interim direction in terms of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. was passed in favour of the applicant in connection with the arrest apprehended by him in respect of Crime No. 2/2011 of Police Station Chamorshi, district Gadchiroli registered on 1.1.2011 for offence under Sections 409 and 420 of IPC. While giving the said direction certain conditions were imposed to see that the direction given does not affect the progress of the investigation of a crime in which it is alleged that the applicant while working as a Gram Sewak at Kurud has committed misappropriation to the tune of Rs.6,42,757/-. Notice of the said application was served upon the prosecution and in pursuance to the same the 2 prosecution has filed the reply. After considering the matters stated in the said reply, it is difficult to perceive that any case is made out for cancelling, altering or varying the said ad-interim direction. Without unnecessarily recording details of matters stated in the said reply, it can be said that during the course of the hearing the learned APP was not able to refute the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant had made the payment to the contractors after the receipt of the report of the Engineer. Having regard to the same and crux of the allegations in the FIR being payment being made in excess for the work executed by the Contractor, and thus considering the nature of said transaction taken place, it is difficult to perceive that the prosecution had made out a case for cancelling the ad-interim direction i.e. by making out a case of personal presence of the applicant being necessary for custodial interrogation for any meaningful purpose. In view of the same, the ad-interim direction deserves to be confirmed. However, having regard to the matters stated during the hearing of this application, this Court expects that the Investigating Officer taking all the necessary steps to collect the evidence about the relevant matters and particularly regarding the vagueness of the allegations occurring in the FIR for bringing the truth before the Court. In the premises aforesaid, the ad-interim direction given on 1.2.2011 is hereby confirmed on same terms and conditions except with the modification that now the applicant shall attend the Investigating Officer in between 8 and 10 a.m. on alternate day for a period of 3 15 days and thereafter as and when required by him for the purposes of investigation until filing of the charge sheet. Application stands disposed of accordingly. JUDGE halwai