1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NOs. 949 & 950 OF 2009 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders 1. Heard Shri K.S.Bhore, Advocate for the petitioners and Smt.B.R.Khekale, APP for the Respondent-State. 2. These are the two writ petitions by accused, who were directors of Hina Shahin Urban Cooperative Bank, Ltd., Beed. The petitioners seek quashing and setting aside of complaint which is registered as CR No. 42 of 2009 at City Police Station, Beed, to their extent. Copies of FIR are produced in both the writ petitions. 3. The complainant had audited accounts of the above said bank and 2 found that there was commission of offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 467, 468, 477-A read with Section 109 and under Section 420 read with 34 of IPC. The total amount alleged to have been misappropriated, regarding which criminal breach of trust was also committed, was Rs.6,26,31,686/=. It is alleged that during the period of audit, present petitioners and other 76 persons, who were Chairman, Directors, President, Vice President, Chief Executive Officer and other officers, Cashiers, Peons, borrowers, Accountants, Chartered Accountants, Pigmy agents, have misused their offices and obtained term loans and other loans and regarding this, false documents were prepared. Without permission of the Board of directors, limits of the loans were raised by forgery, amounts from pigmies and others' accounts were transferred to other accounts and false documents were prepared and the interest of 3,222 depositors and members was brought into danger. 3 4. It is submitted by Advocate Shri Bhore for the petitioners that the auditor, who lodged complaint, ought to have given opportunity for rectification, there should have been enquiry and only thereafter complaint could have been filed. He also submitted that no cognizance could have been taken of the offence without permission of the Registrar (Cooperatives) under Section 148 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act. Section 148 (2) speaks to following effect: "148. No prosecution under this Act shall be lodged except with the previous sanction of the Registrar." Sub section (1) of S.148 lays down that no court inferior to that of the Metropolitan Magistrate of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, shall try offence under the Act. The offences 4 under the Act are described in section 146 and punishments are laid down under Section 147. In the present case, offences are under I.P.C. and not under M.C.S. Act. Moreover section 148 of the M.C.S. Act speaks about taking cognizance of offence and not about entertaining the complaint or investigating into crime. 5. It is also argued by Advocate Shri Bhore for the petitioners that all that is alleged against petitioner in writ petition No.949 of 2009 is that he recommended/proposed loan to one Mohammad Jubed Jamir Bagwan and Saleem Osman Bagwan and the documents produced at Exhibits B and C are regarding the same. Exhibit C is the resolution showing that the present petitioner had proposed the grant of loans. 6. My attention was also drawn to the report of the reserve Bank of India dated 9.6.2008 (Exh.E). It is mentioned in paragraph 9 of the report that there was no detection of new 5 case of fraud during the period covered under the `present inspection' and no fraud is pending as on the date of `present inspection' and thus some frauds were detected earlier and necessary enquiry was being made. So, the report of the R.B.I. does not say that there was no fraud or commission of offence at all. 7. So far as criminal writ petition No.950 of 2009 is concerned, Advocate Shri Bhore drew my attention to one letter dated 30.10.2006 (Exh.B), whereby the petitioner has asked the Manager of Hina Shahin Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd. to provide necessary documents and application to one Shaikh Yunush Shaikh Mahammad, proprietor of S.K.Traders, Beed, for cash credit. It is further stated that necessary compliance be done. 8. The document dated 30.3.2009 at Exhibit C is the letter of Special Auditor to petitioner Shaikh Badiyoddin Shaikh Khudbuddin in his capacity as 6 director of the said Bank and it is stated therein that the petitioner had recommended sanction of loan to S.K.Traders. However, Shri Bhore, learned Advocate for petitioner, drew my attention to Exhibit D which contains minutes of proceedings in the meeting held on 10.11.2006 and it is said that present petitioner is not shown to have been present in that meeting as his name does not reflect in the said minutes. 9. In this case, offences of misappropriation, criminal breach of trust, forgery are alleged to have been committed in respect of amount of more than Rs.6.00 crores. It is alleged that various officers and office bearers of the bank have entered into abetment with each other, prepared false documents and misappropriated the amounts. It is not disputed that both the petitioners were directors of the bank. 10. Considering the nature of offences 7 alleged in the FIR, in my opinion this is not a case wherein FIR should quashed. If the accused are innocent, then it would in their interest that the investigation is carried out so that their innocence comes to the light. 11. Both the writ petitions are, therefore, dismissed. Date:10/11/2009 (P.R.BORKAR, J.) pnd/criwp949.09