1 aba384.386.11.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ABA) NO. 384/2011 Bhaurao Suryabha Madavi ..vs.. State of Maharashtra, thr. PSO P.S. MIDC, Nagpur WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ABA) NO. 386/2011 Bandusing Rahusing Rathod ..vs.. State of Maharashtra, thr. PSO P.S. MIDC Nagpur - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. R. K. Thakkar, Advocate for applicant (ABA No. 384/2011) Mr. S. M. Ghodeswar, Advocate for applicant (ABA No.386/2011) Mrs.B. P. Maldhure, A.P.P. for non applicant-State. CORAM : M.N.GILANI, J. DATE : DECEMBER 23, 2011. 1. Heard both sides. 2. The applicants in both these applications are apprehending arrest in Crime No. 140/2011 registered with Police Station, MIDC, Hingna for an offence punishable under Sections 408, 409 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Bhaurao Madavi, Assistant Sub Inspector, State Reserve Police Force (SRPF) (presently under suspension) is an applicant in Criminal Application No. 384/2011 whereas, Bandusing Rathod, retired Police Inspector, SRPF is an applicant in Cr. Application No. 386/2011. Both the applicants were attached to Group No. 13, SRPF, Nagpur. Bhaurao Madavi was working as Accountant whereas Bandusing Rathod was working as Company 2 aba384.386.11.odt Naik. They were responsible for the financial affairs of the Company. The Company has a bank account with Bank of Maharashtra. The Accountant was supposed to maintain cash books, general cash book and justify the expenditures, if any made. 4. Some anonymous letter was received by the Group Commandant, SRPF and hence the financial transactions for the period from January-2007 to March-2011 were inspected. The enquiry was conducted by Mr. G. N. Deole, who is an officer attached to SRPF holding the rank of Assistant Commandant. 5. Various irregularities were noticed and, therefore, on 05.10.2011 FIR was lodged by one Suresh Mate, Incharge Commandant, SRPF Group No. 13 and on that basis an offence came to be registered. Both these applicants are shown as accused. 6. Case of applicant-Bhaurao Madavi:- Learned counsel for the applicant invited my attention to three annual audit reports for the period from 29.10.2007 to 15.10.2008, 13.10.2008 to 17.09.2009 and 22.08.2009 to 24.0.2010. These are the audit reports in which no irregularities were noticed. It is, therefore, contended that the findings in the subsequent enquiry cannot be said to be of much importance. 3 aba384.386.11.odt 7. Reply filed by the learned A.P.P. states that: (i) The Company account was joint account and was to be operated by both these applicants. The cheques of the various allowances, bills, salary payments of officers and employees were credited to these accounts. As per the entitlements, the applicants were supposed to make lists of officers and employees mentioning a particular amount to which they are entitled to and this was to be diverted to their individual accounts. It was noticed that the entire amount, which was withdrawn was not disbursed. Part of the amount was misappropriated. Most of the times, Bandusing Rathod had deliberately avoided to sign the relevant registers. He deliberately allowed Bhaurao Madavi to withdraw the amount with his signatures. (ii) Statements of 51 employees were recorded. It was revealed that they had not received various allowances like nutrition allowance, compensation for weekly off, travel allowance, difficult task allowance, amount of award etc. (iii) Under the Recurring Deposit Scheme also various irregularities were found. 8. The enquiry conducted by Mr. G. N. Deole revealed the detail of modus operandi adopted by the applicant. During the relevant period, there were withdrawals. However, the entire 4 aba384.386.11.odt amount of withdrawals were not accounted for and part of the amounts were misappropriated. Thus, it is alleged that the entire amount of misappropriation comes to Rs. 9,76,811/-. 9. Case of applicant: Bandusing Rathod: Bandusing Rathod was Company Naik. Now, he is retired. It is submitted that the allegations in the FIR do not point out involvement but they are incriminating to Bhaurao Madavi. After he approached this Court, he was granted ad interim bail. Thereafter, he cooperated with the investigation. 10. I have perused the report of the enquiry conducted by Mr. Deole, Assistant Commandant and find that there is substance in the finding arrived at by Mr. Deole, Assistant Commandant that there had been misappropriation of amount of Rs.9,76,811/-. On that basis, FIR has been lodged 11. This is the case of misappropriation of public funds by public officers. The period of misappropriation is from the year 2007 to 2011. Only because of indepth enquiry, these financial irregularities and misappropriation came to surface. Bandusing Rathod, Company Naik cannot absolve himself by saying that the allegations are against Bhaurao Madavi. The enquiry shows that the account of the Company was being operated by both of them and in the capacity of Company Naik, he was to supervise all the 5 aba384.386.11.odt financial transactions. The fact that during that period, he used to hand over charge to other incharge officers, cannot be of any help to him. It always happens that whenever an officer is on leave somebody else holds the charge during the period of his absence. This is a case of systematic misappropriation over a period of four years. 12. In that light of the matter and as has been contended by the learned A.P.P. custodial and detail interrogation is must for proper investigation. The fact that the applicant was granted ad interim bail, cannot be the ground to confirm the same by ignoring the gravity of the offence, involving loss to public exchequer. 13. Considering the seriousness of the charges levelled against both these applicants and the report of enquiry showing misappropriation of Rs. 9,76,811/-, I am of the view that this is not a fit case where discretion under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to be exercised. 14. The applications are, therefore, rejected. 15. At this stage, Mr. Ghodeswar, learned counsel for the applicant-Bandusing prays that ad interim bail granted by this Court on 04.11.2011 may be continued for further period of two weeks. Prayer granted. 6 aba384.386.11.odt 16. Mr. Thakkar, learned counsel for the applicant-Bhaurao Madavi prayed that two weeks time may be granted to the applicant to surrender before the learned Magistrate, having jurisdiction. Prayer granted. JUDGE kahale