1 I N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Revision No. 29 OF 2010 Shikshak Sahakari Bank Ltd. v. Kantaprasad s/o Deviprasad Namdeo ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's and Registrar's orders orders ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. K.D. Deshpande Advocate for the Applicant. ..... CORAM: A.B.CHAUDHARI, J. DATED : 24 th FEBRUARY,_2010. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 9.2.2010 in Criminal Revision No. 78 of 2009 passed by additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur, the present revision has been filed by the applicant/bank. 2. In support of the present revision, Mr.Deshpande, learned counsel for the applicant, vehemently argued that the revisional court committed error in allowing the accused to examine the Chief Executive Officer of the applicant-bank as his defence witness at the fag end of the trial after recording of statement under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure. According to the learned counsel the Chief Executive Officer of the Bank is at Nagpur whereas the 2 cheque in question relates to the bank at Chandrapur branch and except for delaying the trial and harassing the Chief Executive Officer, there is no motive on the part of the accused and the revisional court committed error in allowing the said revision application. 3. I have gone through the impugned order. It is seen from para 7 of the impugned judgment that there was fraud by the officers of bank in Chandrapur area in crores of rupees in respect of fake loan cases etc.. The court below has further observed that Mr.Puranik, who is the Chief Executive Officer of the Bank, though sitting at Head Quarters at Nagpur, is fully aware about the investigation into the said fraud that was conducted by the bank. It is further seen from the impugned judgment that certain officers of the bank at Chandrapur have been prosecuted at the instance of the Chief Executive Officer of the Bank. It is in this background, the revisional court did not commit an error since the accused had made out a case for producing probable defence before the court in relation to his case. It cannot be said that the plea for examining Mr.Puranik or other witnesses is without any basis, particularly in the above background of the case when no prejudice was caused to the applicant/bank. In the result, I find no merit in the present revision and the same stands rejected. JUDGE 3 /TA/