1 Cri.Appln.No.339/2011 1. FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLN/339/2011 VITTHAL LALU RATHOD V/S 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.GHANEKAR NILESH S. Adv. for applicant; Mr. NB PATIL. APP for State. *** CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL ,J. DATE : 21 st February, 2011. ... 1) Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and learned APP for State. 2) Mr.Ghanekar is creepled to withdraw the application for proper instructions concerning the applicant BDO, Vitthal – Lalu Rathod. 3) Having gone through the papers, it is explicit that the applicant, in the capacity as Block Development Officer (BDO), was cheque-signing and approving authority. His activities/duties also include to visit the sites in question, where the construction of the houses for the beneficiaries under the scheme, i.e. Indira Aawas Yojana, was carried. The applicant/BDO did not discharge his obligation. At least 20/25 cheques, which are signed by the applicant, he has changed/altered names of the beneficiaries and surprisingly such names are not reflecting, matching to the names in the Cash register. The cheques in a lot are collected by one person and not the account holder/beneficiary. 4) Another facet that noticed is, there are several revenue stamps 2 Cri.Appln.No.339/2011 bearing thumb impressions of the beneficiaries, the details of amounts against their names are kept blank; in few of the cases, revenue stamps are signed by the beneficiaries without disclosing as to receipt of the amounts. The blank spaces indicate, without actual payments, arrangement to interpolate payments, was to be ensured, 5) The statements recorded by the Investigating Officer display that they have not received the amount, as has been shown in the respective cheques or vouchers. Pass books were retained by some of the officers. The other accused have put the blame on applicant/BDO informing that the BDO did not monitor the Scheme properly, deligently and consequently the subordinates are held responsible and liable for the alleged misappropriation, mis-misfeasance or excess payments to several persons. 6) Learned APP pointed that this is large scam where as many as 2850 beneficiaries were shown to be eligible to receive the houses under the Scheme. He has explained the formation of the Scheme. 7) It was duty of the applicant/BDO to monitor the activities and cross-check, but he did not discharge his obligation. The payments are released in some of the cases at 16, 19, 13 times/phases as against the very purpose and purport of the scheme to release the payments in four phases only. 8) This is an economic offence, huge embezzlement of Rs. 3,35,00,000/- is involved. Several books/record are to be verified; few books of accounts are still missing, for which, no accounts and traces are furnished. Even if the applicant/accused was on interim protection, barring recording his attendance with the Investigator, he did not facilitate production of the documents or informing the authorities as to what was his minimal role in the activities of misappropriation and non-accounting as regards the disbursement of the amounts to the so-called live or dead persons.. 9) At least 20 cases of such nature, where the persons are dead, 3 Cri.Appln.No.339/2011 no houses under the Scheme are erected/constructed, still the applicant released the payments by issuing the cheques to the dead persons and how such amounts are released in their favour or could be received by such dead persons. 10) Few of the cases are of such nature where, the persons expired during life time of the promulgation of the Scheme. The BDO was authorized to issue cheques to the legal representatives. However, for such purpose also, no legal exercise, as was expected from the applicant/BDO, is initiated. 11) Taking survey of all the facts, pre-arrest bail by way of discretion is not imperative. The application lacks merit dismissed. Interim protection vacated. The observations are prima facie in nature. 12) Learned Counsel for applicant requests for extension of interim protection for a week. Request refused. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/