1 Cri.Appln.No.335/2011 & Ors. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.335/2011 Dinesh s/o Rajaram Sali - APPLICANT VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra and another. - RESPONDENTS ***** Mr.VN Damle, Adv. h/for Mr.HF Pawar, Advocate for Applicant; Mr.Mr.NB Patil, APP for State. ----- WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.664 OF 2011 Shri Sunil Manilal Shah - APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra - RESPONDENT *** Mr.SP Shah, Adv. For applicant; Mr. NB Patil, APP for State. AND CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.888 OF 2011 with CRI.APPLN.NO.4813/2010 in CRI.APPLN.NO.4569/2010 Shri Kishor s/o Purushottam patil - APPLICANT VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra and 2 Cri.Appln.No.335/2011 & Ors. another. - RESPONDENTS Mr.H.F.Pawar, Advocate for applicant/accused; Mr.NB Patil, APP for State. Mr.SU Choudhari, Adv. For intervenor Mr.PP Chavan, Adv. For Resp.Nos.1 to 14. CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 15th March, 2011. PER COURT : 1) Heard Mr.Damle; Mr. Shah and Mr.Pawar for the respective applicants/accused extensively. Learned APP dealt with their submissions, supported by police papers. 2) All applicants urge prearrest bail for allegations of disbursal of huge loans to illegible persons and misappropriation, fictitious entries in the Accounts, turning the loan bad debts, depositors are in lurch and duped of their hard-earned money. 3) Applicant/accused – Dinesh in Criminal Application No.335/2011 was a Branch Manager of Taloda branch of P.K.Anna Patil Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd.Nandurbar, from 15.6.1998 to 11.6.2004. Applicant/accused – Sunil in Criminal Application No.664/2011 was General Manager from 1.1.2004 to 30.9.2004. Applicant/accused – Kishor in Criminal Application No.888/2011 was Branch Manager/Accountant of Nandurbar main branch of 3 Cri.Appln.No.335/2011 & Ors. the Bank from 8.5.2001 till date. 4) Theme of submissions from learned Counsels for the respective applicants/accused was, whatever mis-deeds mis-appropriation and logjam, that has taken place in the Bank, rolls to nucleus of its Board of Directors and these officers/applicants were merely stooge, their acts were pigmy in nature to toe mentor in discharging their duties. Attention was invited to the Circulars showing delegation of powers, diversification and assignment of the duties. 5) Involvement attributed to the applicant (a) – Dinesh relates to loan at Serial Nos.39, 41 and 44 in the F.I.R. (b) Role of applicant – Sunil is that he did not process the loan papers properly, being General Manager of the Bank, to be placed before the Board of Directors. (c)Role attributed to applicant – Kishor is in respect of 20 named loan transactions; in which he has allegedly derelicted in his duties; did not collect requisite documents and did not bother to ensure proper documentations and failed creation of requisite charge of the Bank, for the sums advanced. 5) Before adverting to the submissions advanced elaborately by the respective Counsels, 4 Cri.Appln.No.335/2011 & Ors. vis-a-vis individual loan transactions attended by the applicants/accused, the system of work in the bank needs attention. The banking system, individual duty, obligations, and failure to discharge the same is elaborately indicated in F.I.R. The applicants as Branch Managers were at the grass-root level, were expected to collect the loan proposals, they have to verify requisition and worthy of the loan proposals in tune with credibility of such borrwers to adhere to procedure and guidelines. Thereafter, the Branch Manager is required to transmit the same to Head Office at Nandurbar. At the Head Office, it was either the Manager or the General Manager, were expected to re-verify and to ensure eligibility/capability of such of the applicants to receive the loans, place the same before the Board of Directors. Then, the Board of Directors, either to approve loans or reject it. Its notings/endorsements are taken in the proceedings by General Manager. It is a matter of record that all the loan papers were to be finally processed/approved at the Head Office. 6) The activity of the Bank in all certainty was governed and controlled under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 and the Rules framed thereunder and also the Banking Regulations Act, 1949 with the Guidelines issued 5 Cri.Appln.No.335/2011 & Ors. from time to time by Reserve Bank of India. 7) The instances quoted by Mr.Patil, learned APP, by inviting my attention to the challans and the Debit entries, which are taken at once again credit entries are surreptitiously made by the applicant – Dinesh. This illustrate, he prima facie joined hands while attending the transactions concerning Shakti Steels Pvt. Ltd.to Shahada Wires Pvt. Limited and Kaveri Industries. Also hypothecation vehicle loan to Meena Pramod Patil. 8) Mr.Damle submits, his client has indicated deficiencies in the transaction of Shakti Steels Ltd on 23.11.1998 (page 128). This is illusory and eye-wash, as prior thereto on 14.9.1998, applicant – Dinesh had prepared loan papers and made illegal Debit and Credit entries on 10th October, 2000 for huge amount. Equitable mortgage dated 19.4.2000 does not satisfy the volume of the loan, which was transferred from Shakti Steels Pvt. Ltd. to Shahada Wires, without following legal procedure. It was informed by Mr. Patil, learned APP that the liability of Shahada Wires has now reached to more than Rs.7 crores. The whereabouts of said borrowers are not known. The miseries, which the Branch Manager has committed, illustrate that he was in 6 Cri.Appln.No.335/2011 & Ors. tune to activate a dent for and to ensure free passage to disbursal of loan without security. My attention was also invited to 7/12 extract to highlight as to how fair the applicant-Dinesh was. However, this rather blasts his stand, as loans are allegedlly disbursed in the year 2000, charge was created in 2008 while the applicant himself claims to have resigned w.e.f. March 2008. The applicant – Dinesh should not take credit/shelter of such mutation entries in the revenue record in respect of loans disbursed to Kaveri Industries. 9) The loan disbursed as vehicle loan could not have been transferred from SB account of the borrower, however, it is so done. If it is a case that Pay order was issued to the dealer, there should have been such reflection. However, it is not seen. 10) There is apparently privation in the approach of the two Branch Managers – Dinesh and Kishor. The loan transactions handled by Kishor, referred earlier, speak that the disbursal was of 2004, 2001 and 2003. The loans to Hirabai Ratilal Patil; Bhagwan Daga Patil; Prabhakar Yashwant Kadam (Pune) and Madhuri Harish Kadam, Pune, are necessarily to the discredit of the accused/applicant – Kishor. He, prima facie, 7 Cri.Appln.No.335/2011 & Ors. facilitated disbursement of such loans in league by creating camouflage. This was to ensure benefit to borrower. 11) The detailed submissions from the learned Counsels that the Branch Manager has no role in the transactions, based on the circular of 2002, has no bearing as the loan transactions are processed in the year 2003 and 2004 at the instance of the applicants/accused as Branch Manager, to repeat, they did not take due care, as was expected. 12) It may be as Mr.Damle says that there is no pinch of misappropriation, however, one does not know whether there was extraneous consideration in these affairs by benediction to the applicants/accused, the Branch Managers. During the custodial interrogation, everything will be revealed and unearthed, but it cannot be said, as the documentations being with the Investigator, custody of the applicants/accused is not warranted. These are white-collar offences at the costs of depositors whose faith in banking system is eroded. 13) Though the applicant – Sunil was General Manger, the duties were specified as Mr. Shah, learned Counsel has pointed, indeed, he being 8 Cri.Appln.No.335/2011 & Ors. Head of the administration department, he was in no way concerned with sanction of the loans. However, since he was a General Manager, even if the loans were to be processed by the Manager, it was primarily he, who was responsible to place the loan papers before the Board of Directos for its approval. It was only after his noting, the loan and proposal used to be accepted. The responsibility vests in the General Manager, being of primary nature, even if he had segregated the activities or a Liquidator was appointed, he cannot shirk all his responsibilities in mayhem created at the bank. 14) Mr.Shah submitted that the accused/applicant needs to be released on medical ground. He has suffered accident in 2003 and is required to undergo a surgery to install a rod in his right leg. The applicant is also a patient of diabetic associated with blood pressure. However, for that purpose, bail would not be a solution. Considering the volume of mis-deeds misappropriation and mismanagement involved in the entire transactions, where crores of rupees have been looted brazenly without any security, custodial interrogation would elicit the kingpins, and would ensure nabbing the absconding borrowers. 9 Cri.Appln.No.335/2011 & Ors. 15) In the result, the three applications seeking prearrest bail are rejected. The interim protection in favour of the applicants to remain in force till 1st of April, 2011. 16) Criminal Application No.4813 of 2010 for intervention disposed of. ( K.U.CHANDIWAL ) JUDGE bdv/