1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 49 OF 2010 Anant Manohar Khole ...Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent ..... Mr. M.B. Sandanshiv, Advocate for the appellant Mr. S.D. Kaldate, APP for respondent. ..... CORAM: K.U. CHANDIWAL,J. DATED: 1ST APRIL, 2010 PER COURT:- 1] Heard the learned counsel for the applicant/accused and the learned APP. 2] This is third application in terms of Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. The counsel submits, he being a bonafidely working officer, took proper precaution by filing prosecution against the Manager, who has defalcated in the bank. Secondly, on the principle of parity, as this court has entertained identical such applications of other employees, he needs similar treatment. Thirdly, there was no personal gain to the accused/applicant. At the most, an amount of Rs. 1,13,000/- which is 2 allegedly said to be not accounted, could be reimbursed by him to the bank. Counsel submits that by indulgence of this court, from atleast 25th January, 2010, the accused/applicant has made himself available to the investigator and cooperated. He urged to entertain the petition. 3] The accused/applicant was the Chief Executive Officer of the bank which has been now declared insolvent. The high handed activities of this officer, in tune with the Directors and other staff of the bank, duped several hundred depositors. The deposit receipts are manipulated, cheques are drawn by the accused/applicant under his signature which are not accounted in the bank. The learned AGP in the annexure, has tendered such set of 16 cheques. Ignoring few cheques, the fact remain, a cheque of Rs.10 Lakhs , a challan was prepared by the accused/applicant. It was only for an amount of Rs.1 Lakh, the balance of Rs.9 Lakhs is evaporated. A Fixed Deposit Receipt of Rs. 3 Lakhs is not accounted for. An amount of Rs. 1 Lakh dated 8/9/2007, is not accounted for. A challan for Rs. 6 Lakhs has been prepared by manipulating and amount is withdrawn and the bank record demonstrated it to be Rs. 60,000/-. There are erasions, corrections and initials. A cheque of Rs. 5 lakh dated 11/10/2007 was taken by the applicant, which has not been deposited in the Champavati bank. No entry could be seen in the bank concerning a cheque dated 14/8/2008. The cashier collected Rs. 5 Lakhs from District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. The cheque was issued by the 3 accused/applicant. However, it is not deposited in the bank. Apart from this, the auditor has, in unequivocal terms, pointed as to how several withdrawals have been unauthorizedly made. 3] The applicant, being the Chief Executive Officer of the bank was an architect in the siphoning system, could not claim to be a person without any control over the system. The principle of parity would also not be applicable. The cases of other employees were having different shades. They are clerks and on occasions, it was found that they were touts of either the manager Chavan or the present applicant. The contention that, a criminal case is filed by the applicant/accused against the Manager Chavan may be correct. But, that will not prove his innocence. The overall control being of the accused/applicant, he seldom can run away from the responsibility. In the situation, the third exercise to entertain the application is rejected. The application is, therefore, rejected. The observations made herein are prima facie in nature. (K.U. CHANDIWAL, J.) GRT/