{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 635 OF 2010 Laxmikant s/o Gopal Thombre APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & Another RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.S.S.Chapalgaonkar, Advocate for the applicant Mr.D.V.Tele, APP for respondents State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 8th July 2010 PER COURT: 1. By the present criminal application, the applicant has prayed to release him on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with CR No.213/2009 registered with Kopergaon police Station, Dist-Ahmednagar for an offence punishable u/s 120-B, 405, 408, 415, 420, 464, 465, 468, 469, 470 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. {2} 2. It appears from the record that after this application was moved, interim protection was granted in favour of the applicant vide order dated 22.02.2010 by this Court. Thereafter, as the relevant record was not made available, the application was required to be adjourned from time to time. 3. It further appears that when the matter was on board on 02.03.2010, learned counsel for the applicant had made a statement that since 13.12.2005, the applicant had left the present institution and had joined another institution. It is also contended that the applicant was not working as cashier in the said institution throughout the audit period, i.e. from 01.04.2005 to 31.03.2008. Learned APP was directed to verify the said fact and to produce relevant record. Yesterday, when the application was on board for final hearing, the entire record was not made available and hence the matter was adjourned and today, the record is made available for my perusal. 4. Heard learned counsel for the applicant followed by learned APP for the State. Perused the papers of investigation along {3} with record of the said institution. 5. It is not disputed that Audit of Shree Mahalaxi Nagari Sakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Kopargaon for the period 01.04.2005 to 31.03.2008 was conducted by the Auditor Pandurang Gaikwad. In the said audit, certain irregularities / illegalities in respect of financial transactions of the said institution, were noticed. Therefore, after obtaining necessary permission, the present complaint came to be lodged against in all 43 persons including present applicant, on 10.08.2009. As per the allegations in the complaint, at the material time, the applicant was working as a cashier in the said institution. Papers which are made available for my perusal clearly demonstrate that during the audit period the applicant was working as cashier in the said institution till the end of October 2005. From the documents shown by learned APP it is clear that during the period the applicant was working as a cashier an amount of Rs.90,069/- was withdrawn from the accounts of total 23 persons. All these transactions of withdrawal of amount took place from April 2005 till the end of October 2005. Receipts of these withdrawals are also placed on record, which indicate that {4} though the cash vouchers were prepared by the cashier yet the same does not bear signatures of the persons who had received the amount and the place for signature of account holder is kept blank. If the amount is shown to be paid to the concerned account holder and actually he has not signed the voucher, then it prima facie appears that it is a case of cheating or misappropriation of funds of account holders deposited in the said institution. Therefore, to disinter and to ascertain the truth behind this embezzlement, custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary. Consequently, the application, which is sans merit stands rejected. The interim protection granted earlier is hereby stand vacated. After the dictation of this order was over, learned counsel for applicant requested for extension of the interim protection for a period of two weeks to enable the applicant to approach Apex Court. Considering the fact that interim protection was running for a considerable period, the same is extended for the period of two weeks from today. 6. Today, two affidavits are filed by, one by Additional Superintendent of Police, Shrirampur and another by Police Sub {5} Inspector, Kopargaon. In these two affidavits the police officers have explained the cause of delay in forwarding the papers of investigation to the APP. These officers have also tendered unconditional apology for the delay caused. The explanation so also the unconditional offered in the affidavits is accepted. The notice of show cause issued against these police officers, in this application, is discharged. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B10/criapln635-10