1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2998 OF 2009 Brindaban Golockbehari Das versus State of Maharashtra -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or Directions Court's or Judge's Orders. And Registrar's Orders. Shri R.P. Joshi, advocate for applicant Shri Anoop Parihar, APP for state CORAM : A.P. BHANGALE, J. DATED : 20th AUGUST, 2009. It appears prima facie that it was the applicant who was negligent to issue cheque book to a person other than Shrawan Ganpat Chunarkar who had Saving Bank Account NO. 04630100000761 at Bank of Baroda, Chandrapr Branch. According to the applicant, cheque book mentioning serial number on the requisition slip, was handed over to the Computer Operator Mr. V.G. Gurjar for entering the series number in the Core Banking System [CBS System]. Therefore, Mr. Gurjar was responsible. Be that as it may, in such cases the amount which is lost by customer concerned due to negligence on the part of bank officials, it has to be deposited back with the bank concerned, 2 in the account of depositor customer concerned and the amount shall be recovered from the person who is prima facie found negligent etc. Be that as it may, according to learned counsel for the applicant, some persons who were arrested, the amount has been partially recovered from them, they were also released on bail by the J.M.F.C. Chandrapur. That being so, considering the limited role attributed to the applicant, it may be because of negligence on his part and for issuing cheque book to the person other than the customer, appropriate action against him as indicated above, can be taken by the bank concerned for recovery of the amount and repaying it back to customer concerned, for withdrawal of the amount from the account of Shrawan Ganpat Chunarkar. In such case considering the evidence which is available, being documentary in nature, custodial interrogation of the applicant is not essential. Hence interim anticipatory bail as granted on 5.8.2009 stands confirmed with same conditions as imposed. Application stands disposed of. JUDGE S.M.Pande