1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NOS. 1636/2009, 1637/2009, 1638/2009, 1639/2009 (Satish Digambar Khopde V. The State) -------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders Mr. Sanjay A.Wakure, Adv., for the applicant. Mrs. B.R.Khekale, APP for respondent State. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE: 11/8/2009 P.C.:- 1. Heard learned Counsel for the accused/applicant Mr. S.A.Wakure and learned A.P.P. Mrs. B.R.Khekale. 2. The accused/applicant is working as a Peon in the tehsil office. Counsel informs that there are no allegations against him. Only on page 16 it is indicated that by following a wrong procedure, the notes are prepared by the accused/applicant. The Counsel informs that his client has, by the nature of his duties, no specific role to cause lifting of the food grains without entitlement by the 2 shop owners. 3. It is specifically mentioned that accused/applicant though is Peon at Tehsil office, he has, without verifying the documents, made endorsement in the same. He had no authority to do so. The endorsement made by the accused/applicant, though a Peon, facilitated lifting of food grains without any authority. The food grains were meant for labours working under the Government Employment Guarantee Scheme. It did not reach proper doors and it has seen the exit from other doors, for extraneous consideration. In the situation, the role of the accused being primarily seen in manipulating the record, pre-dating the document or adding figures preceding the main figures of the demand, consequently, respective applications moved by the accused/applicant Satish s/o Digambar Khopde are rejected. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE ... agp/1636-09crapl