1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.: 2399 OF 2009 Arun S/o Apparao Sawrikar Versus State of Maharashtra. *** Mr. Swapnil S. Rathi, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. K. M. Suryawanshi, A.P.P. for the Respondent/ State. *** CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.: 2458 OF 2009 Vithal S/o Gynoji Gadekar Versus The State of Maharashtra. *** Mr. S.V.Gangapurwala, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. K. M. Suryawanshi, A.P.P. for the Respondent/ State. *** 1. Heard respective counsel and learned A.P.P. The Applicant Arun is the cashier in the bank joined at the branch on 28th April, 2008 while the applicant Vithal is the Branch Manager, joined the bank on 26th May, 2008. 2. Indeed it is the accused Vithal, the Branch Manager, who allegedly is a whistle blower for the irregularities or illegalities committed by Shriniwaslu, the employee of the bank at the material time. However, during the course, an in depth investigation 2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. as to the various embezzlements it revealed hopping amount of Rs.15 Lakhs was siphoned off from the nationalised bank at a systematic generation of amounts played by Shriniwaslu, the Clerk in the bank. The evidence indicated that the password of the accused Arun at-least for two dates 7th June, 2008 and 27th August.2008 was used by said Shriniwaslu. It was canvassed by Mr. Rathi that on these two dates his client was on leave. This submission is cosy in nature but difficult to digest. The password could not be made available to the other employee how it is done, is better known to the accused applicant Arun. That apart, the accused, apparently, has carried unauthorised disbursement though he was a cashier did not verify the respective vouchers which are not traced in the bank. This also shows complicity of accused Arun in the affairs of embezzlement in the channel. 3. Then comes the role of accused Vitthal. The papers placed by the learned A.P.P. shows various loans have been disbursed to various borrowers. However, no documents were collected from the said borrowers and the transaction are dated 7th June, 2008, 10th June, 3 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. 2008, 16th September, 2009, 22nd October, 2008, 27th October, 2008. Thus, all these transactions are after the accused applicant Vitthal joining the branch as Branch Manager. It is primary obligation on him being the Branch Manager to have control over the accounts and also to collect the vouchers, loan papers. Additional amounts were shown released in some accounts but transferred to saving account of Shinivaslu. This could not have happened without there being a team work to commit a fraud. Accused has indeed joined in the team for connivance with the main culprit Shriniwaslu, the architect in the matter, and caused loss to the bank. Consequently, no merit in the applications. They are rejected. Interim protection is extended till 20th August, 2009. 4. The observations are prima facie in nature. [K. U. CHANDIWAL, J.] Dated:05/08/2009. ans/2399