1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRI.APPLICATION NO. 2617 OF 2005 (Chandrakant Shinde & oth Vs. State) _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATED : AUGUST 23, 2006. 1. Heard Shri Dhumale, holding for Adv. Parchure, learned counsel for the Applicants and Shri Fulzele, learned A.P.P. for Respondent/State. 2. The applicants have approached this Court for having order passed by learned Third Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur in Criminal Revision No.31 of 2003 before him quashed and set aside. By the said order the learned Additional Sessions Judge had dismissed applicant's revision, taking exception to rejection of their application for 2 discharge by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandrapur, before whom the applicants are being tried for various offences. 3. According to the learned counsel for the applicants, though the applicants are in the management of education society, which runs a school, where offence of misappropriation, falsification of accounts is committed, the applicants are not party to those activities. According to the learned counsel, the entire misappropriation etc. was carried out by one Sahebrao Yadao with the help of his sons Mahesh and Abhay, who were employees of the said school. The learned counsel states that applicant No.1 had filed report before the Police Station on 31.03.2000 but was unable to produce copy of that report. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, there was absolutely no necessity to frame charge of the alleged offences against the applicants and the 3 learned Chief Judicial Magistrate as well as learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge erred in disallowing their prayer for discharge. 4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor rightly submitted that the applicants are in management of the institution. Defalcation to the tune of lacs of rupees would have been avoided had the applicants been vigilant in management of the affairs of the institution. Their omission to guard the interest of the institution and neglect in allowing the activities of the Secretary and his two sons would, according to the learned A.P.P., amounts to omission which would constitute an offence. 5. Without going into this aspect of the matter, suffice it to observe that it would be for the applicants to demonstrate at the trial that they have no complicity in the entire episode, whereby large sums of money were siphoned out from the rightful 4 beneficiaries to the accounts of Sahebrao's sons. Prima-facie, it cannot be said that the applicants have established that they have been needlessly joined as accused in the trial and their involvement would have to be enquired into at the trial. Therefore, the case is not fit for invocation of jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code, consequently the application is rejected. 6. The applicants would be at liberty to contest the trial and raise all the contentions which have been pressed in aid in this application. JUDGE. RR.