1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3667 OF 2009 Rajendra Patruji Tumbekar ..vs.. State of Mah. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3666 of 2009. Baban Ganpatrao Bhendale ..vs.. State of Mah. =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- C ORAM : C.L.PANGARKAR, J. DATED : 22nd December, 2009. 1. Heard Mr.Morande, learned counsel for the applicants and Mrs.Ketki Joshi, learned APP for the State. 2. These two applications can be disposed by a common order. 3. There is a Society known as Mahatma Fule Vidyalaya, Karmachari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd. Mendki. The present applicants are the President and Secretary of the said Society. An audit was 2 carried out of the said Society for the year 2006-07 – 2007-08. During the course of the audit, several discrepancies were found and it was found that both the accused together had misappropriated a large sum. It was alleged that the applicants had shown that some of the employees had taken the loan but in fact those employees had never applied for sanction of any loan. It was also alleged that though some of the employees had repaid the amount and receipts were passed, those sums were not shown in the cash book. The amounts of certain persons were credited to current account in the bank and that amount was shown to have been credited in the account of the President of the Society. After the audit was carried out, the accused/applicants were directed to place before the auditor the documents refuting these allegations. Since such documents were not placed before the auditor within seven days as directed by him, a report was lodged with the police and accused/applicants apprehend arrest on account of that. 4. The learned counsel for the accused/applicants submits that as far as Shri Tumbekar is concerned, the allegations are prima facie not correct because instalments are being deducted from the salary of Shri Tumbekar and he had actually obtained a loan. 3 Shri Tumbekar at the relevant time certainly was working as Secretary of the Society. The notice is addressed by the auditor to both Shri Bhendale and Shri Tumbekar and both were called upon to explain deficiencies that were noted. Therefore, the contention of Shri Morande, learned counsel for the applicants, that there are no allegations against Tumbekar are not correct. 5. The amount may have been deducted from the salary of Shri Tumbekar but as far as other transactions are concerned, it cannot be said that Tumbekar is not concerned with that. Being a Secretary, prima facie, it must be said that he was equally responsible. 7. Shri Morande, learned counsel, however, submitted before me that the applicant/accused Shri Bhendale has deposited the entire amount which is said to be misappropriated. That could hardly be a ground to grant an anticipatory bail. There is a clear allegation in the report of the auditor that although certain persons had not applied for grant of loans, loans were shown to be taken in their name and the amount has been misappropriated. Their statements have been recorded and those statements support the theory of the auditor. It 4 cannot, therefore, prima facie be said at this stage that the charge as levelled against both the applicants are groundless. In the circumstances, the applications for anticipatory bail are rejected. JUDGE. chute