1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1704/2009, 1740/2009, 1741/2009, 1742/2009 (Dagdu s/o Sitaram Kale Vs. State) -------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders Mrs. S.S.Jadhav, Adv., for the applicant. Mrs. B.R.Khekale, APP, for respondent State. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE: 11/8/2009 P.C.:- 1. Heard Smt. S.S.Jadhav extensively for the applicant. 2. Dagdu S/o Sitaram Kale, Naib Tehsildar, worked at Tehsil office. These applications are moved mostly on identical ground except the grounds in application No.1704/2009, contending that on the date of alleged lifting of the goods or routing the demand letters dt.6.7.2007, 6.8.2008, 7.7.2008, the accused/applicant was assigned with other duties and it could not have been attended to by the accused/applicant. The 2 request and demand was of 15.6.2006 while the goods were lifted on 7.3.2007 and hence, according to Counsel, no role could be attributed to the accused/applicant. 3. The Government record indicates that the accused/applicant, in the capacity as Naib Tehsildar (Revenue) was in concert with Avval Karkun Mahajan and Peon Khopade as on 28.3.2007 by a demand letter dt.19.5.2007 vide permit no.863707 and by other permits, on three occasions, have signed on 120 quintal permit. They did not verify the demand which was issued by the Panchayat Samiti Officers and, consequently, allowed the permits to be issued by adding figures to the actual demand. The interpolation and addition to the demand letter and, thereafter, the orders of issuance of permit was a team work of the applicant and it was naturally to cause loss to the Government with sheer intention, prima facie, to make extraneous consideration, to 3 cause benefits to the respective shop owners without there being such demand or without there being such distribution to the needy labourers. The very purpose of the Government scheme has been frustrated by the device discovered by the accused/applicant by joining other employees. Consequently, since the investigation as to the respective permits, its signatures, the supply, the chain and the demands registered are to be verified, custodial interrogation is pre-emptive. Consequently, respectively applications for bail are rejected. The observations are prima facie in nature. . The interim protection enjoyed by the applicant is extended till 20th August, 2009. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE ... agp/1704-09crapl