1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2773/2009. (Vishnu s/o Bhanudas Pawar Vs. The State of Maharashtra) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders. or directions and Registrar’s orders ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.SS Thombre, Advocate for applicant; Mr.DR Korde, APP for State. ___ CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 10 th September,2009. 1. Heard learned Counsel and learned APP. 2. The applicant/accused is a clerk in Champawati Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd., Beed. The Counsel informs, pursuant to the order dated 17th August, 2009, the accused/applicant has attended the concerned Investigator and cooperated the Auditor also. 3. The report filed by the Investigator and tendered by learned APP indicates that the accused/applicant has interpolated the Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs) and changed the figures, causing loss of Rs. 4,40,000/- to the Bank. In other Fixed Deposit Receipts with DCC Bank, Beed for Rs.40,00,000/-, it was a forged bank receipts of Fixed Deposits. The third one is while the accused/applicant was 2 Incharge of Pigmy department, Rs. 2,32,330/- and Rs.12,300/- were shown as deposits/credit though there was no such deposits and credits. 4. Mr.Thombre submits that the letter filed by Chavan (son of the Manager) was in the year 2004 and the applicant was not working in the said Pigmy department at the material time. This is incorrect. The amount of loan is raised on 30.09.2006 when the accused/applicant was holding charge of Pigmy section. 5. The contention that Rs. 12,300/- is deposited by Eknath Gaikwad, as referred in Misc.Criminal Application No. 437/2009 before the Additional Sessions Judge-2, Beed, may be correct, but by that itself, the responsibility at the shoulders of the present accused/applicant in the embezzlement, will not be diluted. 6. In such eventualities, pre-arrest bail cannot be granted as the interrogation is peremptorily required. 7. Criminal Application is rejected. ( K.U.CHANDIWAL ) JUDGE bdv/cran2773.09