(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. Criminal Application No. 1762 of 2010 (In Criminal Application No. 1308 of 2010) Kisan s/o. Baburao Berad, Age : 66 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Somewadi, Post : Mehekari, Taluka : Nagar, District : Ahmednagar. .. Applicant. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra. 2. The Police Inspector, Tofkhana Police Station, Ahmednagar, District : Ahmednagar. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. V.D. Hon, Advocate, for the applicant. Mr. S.D. Kaldate, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the respondents. ........................ (2) CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 4TH MAY 2010 COURT'S ORDER : 1. Heard both sides. 2. By Criminal Application No. 1308/2010, vide order dated 28th April 2010, on hearing both sides and considering the pathetic condition of the Milk Scheme, where the accused / applicant was a Vice-Chairman, involving huge financial irregularities, illegalities and instances of embezzlement, this court directed the accused / applicant to deposit Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) directly with the Milk Scheme within 4 weeks and to produce receipt before this court. 3. Such payment was certainly without prejudice to the right of the applicant to recover the amount. Now, a request is made to reduce the amount from Rs. 5,00,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/-. The reasons assigned are, that the accused is a small farmer with 4 Acres 17 Gunthas land, non-irrigated, with liability of five members to feed. The accused / applicant has approached a Cooperative Credit Society, which has offered him Rs. 1,00,000/- as a loan on creating charge on the property. The (3) learned Counsel appearing for the applicant submits, the compliance of payment of Rs. 5,00,000/- is beyond the reach of the accused / applicant. He says, in addition, the role of the accused / applicant also warrants consideration, being minimal in the activities of the Milk Scheme. 4. At the time of passing the order on 28th April 2010, all prons and cons of the eventuality were scanned minutely. It is not that the order dated 28th April 2010 was abruptly passed. The learned Counsel for the applicant was indicated, what was running in the mind of the court while exercising discretion of the court under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in favour of the applicant. There was no whisper, nor demur, on the part of the accused / applicant to indicate any infirmity in compliance. Even time to think over was granted to the accused / applicant. 5. However, considering all the above odds, in stead of making compliance within four weeks from the date of the order, the order dated 28th April 2010, in so far as Clause IV of the operative order, is modified. The accused / applicant is directed to deposit Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) within four weeks from today, and for balance amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs), time up to 30th August 2010, is granted. (4) 6. The Criminal Application is partly allowed in the above terms. ( K.U. CHANDIWAL ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/cri1762