1 apln538&666-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.538 OF 2010 Mrs.Shobha Uttam Vetal. ..Applicant. Vs. State of Maharashtra ..Respondent. .... Mr.A.P. Mundargi, Senior Counsel i/b. Mr.Amol Patankar, Advocate for the applicant. Mr.S.N. Gawade, A.P.P. for the State. .... ALONG WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.666 OF 2010 Mangesh Popat Chaudhari. ..Applicant. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ..Respondents. .... Mr.Niranjan Mundargi, Advocate i/b. Mr.Dilip Devadiya, Advocate for the applicant. Mr.P.S. Hingorani, A.P.P. for the State. .... CORAM : A.R.JOSHI, J. DATED : 30TH JULY, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard rival submissions at length in both the applications for anticipatory bail preferred by the respective 2 apln538&666-10 applicants. In Criminal Application No.538 of 2010 the applicant was working in the Sub-Registrar's office at Virar for six months and during the said period just two days prior to her transfer from the said office i.e. on 16.1.2009 one document was brought for registration. According to the job of the Sub-Registrar, the applicant was then holding, she was supposed to pass a challen for a particular amount so as to give directions to the State Bank to accept the amount and then after getting the acknowledgment from the bank on the another copy of the challen and after franking the said document for the said requisite amount of stamp duty, she is supposed to sign on the said document in lieu of acceptance of a particular stamp duty. As such, role of the applicant by way of Sub-Registrar of Assurances is significant and much care is needed as the initial authorization for acceptance of the particular stamp duty amount is to be done by such officer. In the present matter though it is only one document and the authorization was purportedly given for Rs.600/- only, actual violation and quantified amount for the stamp duty was Rs.4,600/-. 3 apln538&666-10 2. During the arguments, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant submitted that considering the workload in the office, it is practically impossible to verify each and every document and ascertain the total valuation of stamp duty and in routine course probably still accepting some sort of negligence, the applicant had authorized the challen for Rs. 600/- only. Subsequently it was a job of the agent who is already arrested, to deposit the amount in the bank and while getting back the acknowledgment from the Bank he had tampered with the document and inserted the amount of Rs.4000/- showing that the total payment to the bank was for Rs.4,600/-. Admittedly this is a sole transaction which was authorized by the present applicant in Criminal Application No.538 of 2010. It is further argued on behalf of this applicant that the reconciliation of the actual payment with the State Bank of India and the payment shown by the franking machine is done at the end of the month and immediately after the two days of the incident she was transferred to her usual place of working and she was so transferred on 18.1.2009. 4 apln538&666-10 3. So far as the applicant in Criminal Application No.666 of 2010 is concerned, the role of the present applicant allegedly is that being a Junior Clerk in the office of the Sub- Registrar at Virar he was supposed to accept the acknowledgment mentioned on the challen received from the Bank after the payment of stamp duty is made and thereafter franking the relevant document received for registration after verifying that the amount mentioned in the challen received from the Bank is same as what is the proper valuation for the stamp duty as per the contents of the document. It is his job to make the franking of the document and made relevant entry in the register and such entry again to be countersigned by the Sub-Registrar. 4. During the arguments, learned APP for the State submitted that this is a matter in which the State exchequer has been defaulted for the total amount of Rs.19 lakhs and odd by way of depositing less amount with the State Bank of India however making alteration in the challen copies and showing that the said challen is for the proper valuation for 5 apln538&666-10 the stamp. It is also alleged that without active assistance of the office bearers, such as present applicants, such fraud could not have been successfully done by the agent who is the main accused. 5. Considering the rival submissions and considering the fraud in the Government office i.e. the Sub-Registrar of Assurances at Virar and still considering the role of the present applicants, in both the applications, it would not be in the fitness of the situation to give a concrete order of anticipatory bail. However, for a limited period, both the applicants can be protected from their arrest and directions can be given to them to surrender before the appropriate Court and ask for regular bail. In the result, both the present applications are disposed of with following order :- :: O R D E R :: [i] Both the applicants are directed to surrender before the concerned Additional Sessions Court at Vasai and ask for regular bail within two weeks from the date of this order and till that time they are protected from 6 apln538&666-10 the arrest in the present matter. [ii] Learned Additional Sessions Judge who will deal with the regular bail applications, shall not be influenced by the observations made in the present order so far as merits of the said applications are concerned. [iii] With these directions, both the Criminal Application Nos.538/2010 & 666/2010 are disposed of. (A.R.JOSHI,J.) PPD 7.appln538&666-10