1 Cri.applns.193-194.11 hvn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 193 OF 2011 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 194 OF 2011 Mr. M.K. Unnikrishnan ... Applicant Versus State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents Ms. Anuja Deshpande i/by M/s. Law Focus for Applicant. Mr. S.K. Shinde for respondent no. 1. Mr. S.A. Shaikh, A.P.P. for State. CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL,J. DATED : AUGUST 17, 2011 P.C. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant (Orig. accused no. 2 ) in both the matters. Rule. 2. Two prosecutions namely Special Case No. 29 of 2007 and 30 of 2007 are pending against the applicant as accused No. 2 before the learned Special Judge at Grater Bombay. In both the proceedings discharge application was moved. The learned Judge based on available 2 Cri.applns.193-194.11 material by order dated 18.11.2009 partly allowed the application. The applicant was discharged from the offence punishable under section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1980. However, his request to discharge him from the offence under section 420 read with 120B of I.P.C. was not entertained. 3. The learned counsel submits the applicant was though styled as Manager was in fact Desk Officer. As the present applicant while discharging his duties, signed documents of different nature as required in his official capacity as per directions of respondent no. 1 senior Manager of the Bank. The learned counsel reiterated that the accused had no intention to dupe the bank. She canvassed discretion has been exercised by the Senior Manager and for that purpose accused cannot be held responsible. 4. The facts in Cri. Application No. 193 of 2011 are concerned, indicate that primarily by alleged criminal conspiracy the bank was duped to the sum of Rs.91.41 lacs. by entertaining and disbursing the alleged facilities to original accused no. 3 by allowing to open current account without there being operation and thereafter allowing the cash credit of Rs. 20 lacs. Then entertaining the loan proposal for Rs. 15 3 Cri.applns.193-194.11 lacs. It is curious record illustrate, the property which was offered as security to Punjab & National Bank from M/s. Marvel Engineers was already mortgaged to Vidya Sahakari Bank by way of term loan of Rs. 50 lacs. by accused no. 3 Nagesh and his wife accused no. 4 in the name of M/s. Marvel Engineers Pvt. Ltd. The accused applicant in the later case has prepared the document. He signed one of the guarantee agreement as witness. The alleged the operations in the account if any, was deceit and not to the tune of banking system. Without caring for interest of his organization, the accused as a bank official coordinated with his colleagues in duping the bank. The observation of the learned Judge does not call for interference. The above observations by this court are prima facie at primary stage and need not be influenced at the time of hearing of respective special cases. I do not see any merit in both the applications. Accordingly, they are rejected. Rule in both the petitions is discharged. (K.U. CHANDIWAL,J.)