* 1 * W.P. 2662 & 2663.2010 21.2.2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2662 OF 2010 W I T H CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2663 OF 2010 Atanupanchanan Bhushan & anr. .... Petitioners V/S. The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent * * * * * * Mr. J.G. Bhanushali, Advocate for the petitioners. Mrs. M.R. Tidke, APP the State-respondent. Coram : Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. 21st February, 2011. P.C. : 1. This is a common order on the above two petitions. Petitioner no.1 is employed as Assitant Manager with ICICI Bank, Shoppers Stop Branch, Andheri (West), Mumbai and petitioner no.2 is working as an officer with ICICI Bank, Lokhandwala Branch, Andheri(West). Both the petitioners came to be arrested on 10th * 2 * W.P. 2662 & 2663.2010 21.2.2011 December, 2009 in C.R. No. 550/2008 dated 4th September, 2008 registered with Oshiwara Police Station for the offfences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of Indian Penal Code. The investigation into the complaint was subsequently taken over by GBCB, CID, EOW by registering C.R. No. 85/2008. On completion of the investigation, on 2nd December, 2008 chargesheet came to be filed in the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 19th Court, Esplanade against the petitioners and it has been numbered as C.C. No. 989/PW/2008. The petitioners had also been arrested on 15th September, 2008 in C.R. No. 546/2008 dated 2nd September, 2008 registered with Oshiwara Police Station for identical offences, the investigation of which was subsequently taken over by GB CID, EOW by registering C.R. No. 84/2008. On completion of the investigation of the case, chargesheet came to be filed on 5th December, 2008 in the same court and was registered as C.C. No.1000/PW/2008. 2. The facts alleged in the two petitions are identical. They relate to bank Accounts No. 001101011374 and 001105010081 held with Andheri (West) Branch of ICICI Bank. The first Account was a * 3 * W.P. 2662 & 2663.2010 21.2.2011 joint Account held by Darshana Parikh, Mr. Umesh Parikh and Mr. N.P. Parikh. The second Account was held by one Nikhil Shah. The complainant in both the cases is one Mr. Zahir Babu Shaikh, Branch Operations Manager of ICICI Bank, Lokhandwala branch. From the above two bank Accounts, amounts in the sum of Rs.41,22,000/- and Rs.16,80,000/- were transferred through the facility of RTGS (Real time gross settlement) facility. This facility enables an account holder by filling an application form in the prescribed format to transfer amount over Rs.1,00,000/- to any other bank Account in India, provided the signatures of the Account holder on the RTGS form and the specimen signature with the Bank, matches. The transfer from the first joint account held by the Parikhs was to the account of one Saleem Kamalsab Shirahatti-co-accused held with the Corporation Bank at Hubli, Karnataka. The transfer from the second Account was to an account held by M/s. Inforum Technology maintained with the State Bank of India, College Road Branch, Dharwad, Karnataka. 3. The complainant, Mr. Zahir Babu Shaikh in his complaint to the Senior Inspector of Police, Oshiwara Police Station, Mumbai * 4 * W.P. 2662 & 2663.2010 21.2.2011 stated that some unknown persons with an RTGS request had come for transfer of sum of Rs.41,22,000/- and Rs.16,50,000/- respectively to the accounts mentioned hereinabove. The bank had found that the RTGS request form was dully filled in with the signature of the customer. The concerned officers of the concerned bank had verified the signatures of the customers and found no apparent mismatch in the signature appended to the form and that which was available in the records. Therefore, the transfer of the amount by RTGS facility was made. It was later realised that the unknown persons had misrepresented, misguided the Bank and thereby wrongfully gained themselves and caused wrongful loss to the Account holders. Therefore, complaint was made to police of criminal breach of trust, forgery by knowingly presenting the forged documents as genuine documents with the intention of cheating. 4. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioners, that the chargesheet as filed initially though named the petitioners, it did not involve them into the offences. The chargesheet carried a rider that the chargesheet against the petitioners were to be filed subsequently as the investigation into the complaint as against them * 5 * W.P. 2662 & 2663.2010 21.2.2011 was still continuing. Thereafter, the chargesheet against the petitioners came to be filed on 2nd December, 2008. Mr. Bhanushali, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the only material against the petitioners that is possibly available with the prosecution is the statement of the co-accused involving the petitioners into the offence. Mr. Hingorani, the learned APP points out that there is recovery made at the instance of the petitioners of cash amounts from their respective residence after their arrest. Pursuant to the statement made by petitioner no.1, a sum of Rs. 20,000/- was recovered from his house and pursuant to the statement made by petitioner no.2 a sum of Rs.30,000/- came to be recovered from the house of petitioner no.2. Mr. Bhanushali, submits that the monthly salary received by the petitioners is far above the amount alleged to have been recovered from their respective residences. Therefore, there is nothing unnatural about the amounts of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.30,000/- being at the residences of both the petitioners. The learned APP has produced the entire police file for the perusal of the Court. On perusal of the police file, as also, the statements accompanying the chargesheet, it cannot be * 6 * W.P. 2662 & 2663.2010 21.2.2011 said that no offence whatsoever is made out against the petitioners. The contentions that have been raised by the petitioners in the present petitions are infact their defence which will have to be set out by them at the time of trial. Hence, the petitions are dismissed. The learned APP, on instructions, from the Investigation Officer present in the Court states that the chargesheet in both the cases will be filed within a period of 2 months from today. [Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J]