1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NOs.2538/2009; 2333/2009 2395/2009; 2396/2009; 2582/2009; 2659/2009. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders. or directions and Registrar’s orders ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.VN Damle, Adv. For Applicant (In Cri.Appln.2538/2009); Mr.CV Thombre, Adv. For Applicant (In Cri.Appln.2333/2009); Mrs.SS Jadhav, Adv. For applicants (In Cri.Appln.2395/2009, 2396/09 & 2659/2009); Mr.Joydeep Chatterji, Adv. For applicant (inCri.Appln.2582/2009) Mr.KM Suryawanshi, APP for State in all matters. ___ CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 7 th August,2009. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the respective applicants/accused and learned APP for the State at length. 2. The accused/applicants are the bank employees and three are Directors of Champawati Nagri Sahakari Bank (hereinafter to be referred as the Bank). The Auditor's report in broad terms indicated that there was overdrawing of huge amounts unauthorizedly extended to the borrowers, relatives of the Directors; grant of loans to the persons not eligible and disproportionate to their 2 assets and capacity; premature cancellation of Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs) of various depositors; interpolation/erasion in the Fixed Deposit Receipts of the depositors, pocketing depositors' money by not showing exact amounts, but in the bank showing petty amount as against huge deposits of individual depositors. 3. The applicant in Criminal Application No.2659/2009 is the Loan Disbursement Officer. Major loans were disbursed during his tenure. He had an audacity to retain the bank record under the pretext that he desired to file a detailed reply and coordinated in further manipulation or overwriting of the record. 4. It was canvassed by Smt. Jadhav for the two Directors - Madhukar Sarpate and Dnyanoba Laxman Bilpe that they have not availed any loans. Madhukar Sarpate attended the meetings for the loan only on two occasions out of ten such meetings, he had attended. The Director in Criminal Application No. 2396/2009 is 65 years old, he is an elected member, but he did not borrow a single farthing. 5. The Counsel informs, for no valid reasons, the two Directors, viz. Ratnakar Motiram Warpe and Suresh Rambhau Wangikar are exonerated by the Auditor. According to her, Suresh being 3 an influential person, editor of the newspaper of the city namely Daily Zunjar Neta, probably, the Auditor thought to bless with such honour. This, counsel informs, apparently is discrimination not warranted and no equal treatment, as was expected, is given. The investigator is bound to unleash facts and nab the directors since they are alleged to have played identical role. 6. The in-depth investigation carried by the Auditor though it is called beyond his period of allocation and investigation carried by the Investigator appointed in the matter, indeed is an eye-opener as to how high- handed personalities having position of power have arrogated into themselves the supremacy to nibble the bank funds like rodent. They have, for personal gains, siphoned off crores of rupees of the poor depositors for which investigation is in progress, damage caused still to be verified and assessed. 7. The loan documents are not in order. Unauthorized persons are favoured though major chunk of receipts is shown to Ashok Chavan. However, reading the papers, it is more than clear that these are activities in concert and a team work. It could not have been activated 4 without any support of the present applicants/accused. 8. Custodial interrogation by itself will be providing acceleration to unearth the mis-deeds, illegalities of several persons connected with the disbursement. To quote few of the examples are, Rs. 1,00,000/- was received from one depositor, Fixed Deposit Receipt was issued to him, however, in the bank the amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) was only deposited. In other case, Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) was shown to have been deposited as against deposit of Rs. 2,00,000/-. In case of Bhiwraj Dhaba (temporary Eating house at Highway), loan of Rs.50,00,000/- was disbursed and the outstanding was Rs. 1,07,23,227 without affording any security, no certificate of the property is on record. The Loan Officer did not visit that site. Indeed, the Dhaba was not at all in existence. In identical matter of Nitin Shelke, the amount was disbursed, however, he has, after the prosecution, deposited more than Rs. 40,00,000/- and around Rs.11,50,000/- are due from him. In this case also, security was 0.7 R. of the property without proper valuation, site was not visited. Indeed, the said Dhaba is 5 closed as Nitin is now in employment with M.S.E.B. In the matter of Laxmi Hardware, Beed, an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- was disbursed, the liability is Rs.28,62,242/-, proper mortgage was not obtained, no attempts to make the recovery were made, no renewal effect made. Balance sheet of the firm for its worth not collected. Even the Certificate of income and permanent residence of the guarantor not collected. In other various cases, which are quoted by the Investigator and Inspector, Deposit Receipts are not issued to those depositors though amounts were received by the officers in the bank. Apart from this, without taking any loan documentations, Rs. 5,00,000/-, were disbursed to one doctor and the amount is shown in Sundry Account of C.E.O. The C.E.O. says, he was on leave. The cashier manipulated the same. The fact remains, bank is duped for Rs. 5,00,000/-. They are shifting the responsibility on each other to seek indulgence from this Court of discretion under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. However, I find that the concert of above referred persons having arrogated power into themselves and exploited the situation, could be addressed by custodial interrogation. 6 Consequently, the respective Criminal Applications rejected. ( K.U.CHANDIWAL ) JUDGE bdv/cran2538.09