IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1062 OF 2008 Ahmed Majid Khan .. Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mr.Prakash Naik for the petitioner. Mr.D.P.Adsule, A.P.P for the respondent. CORAM CORAM CORAM : ABHAY S.OKA, J. : ABHAY S.OKA, J. : ABHAY S.OKA, J. DATE DATE DATE : 12th August 2008. : 12th August 2008. : 12th August 2008. JUDGMENT JUDGMENT JUDGMENT: . The petitioner (accused) by filing this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has challenged the order dated 27th June 2007 passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 19th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai by which an application for seeking discharge has been rejected. The said order of the learned Magistrate has been confirmed by the Sessions Court by order dated 13th February 2008 in revision application preferred by the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is being prosecuted for offences under section 406, 409, 420 read with section 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. The first informant is one Ziyauddin Shaikh, a depositor of the Friends Co-operative Bank Limited. The petitioner was one of : 2 : 2 : 2 : the directors of the said bank. The allegation is that directors of the said bank had obtained loans for themselves. The allegation is that loans were sanctioned by the directors to others in large amounts without abiding by the rules and regulations issued by the Reserve Bank of India. The allegation is that due care and caution was not taken by the directors for securing the interests of the investors of the said bank. Allegations are of defrauding the Bank. 3. The case of the petitioner is that he has no concern with the offence. The case of the petitioner is that infact he has repeatedly written letters to the chairman of the said bank from time to time pointing out various irregularities in the functioning of the bank. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has invited my attention to certain statements of witnesses forming part of the chargesheet. He invited my attention to the allegations made against the petitioner in the remand application submitted before the learned Magistrate. He pointed out that the statements of the witnesses recorded during the investigation show that there is absolutely no case to proceed against the petitioner. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the allegations against the petitioner relate to loan account Nos.9017, 2160, 9360 and 9451. He submitted : 3 : 3 : 3 : that the material produced alongwith chargesheet discloses that atleast in case of three out of four accounts, the loan amount has been duly repaid and in case of one account bearing No.9360 recovery proceedings under the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 are pending. He pointed out that in so far as the said four loan accounts are concerned, there is no material to show any fabrication of documents or that the loan was released to fictitious person. He submitted that in case of these four accounts, there is no material to show that false accounts were maintained. He submitted that in any case the petitioner was not responsible for maintenance of the accounts in as much as he was only a director of the bank. He placed reliance on a decision of Rajasthan High Court in case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Kesarsingh (1969 Criminal Law Journal 1595). He, therefore, submitted that the cause for discharge was certainly made out and the courts below have committed an error by not passing the order of discharge. 4. The learned A.P.P has placed on record a xerox copy of chargesheet. He pointed out that the allegations in the F.I.R against the petitioner relate to certain other accounts apart from the aforesaid four accounts. He has invited my attention to the relevant statements of the witnesses. He submitted that there : 4 : 4 : 4 : was sufficient material on record to proceed against the petitioner. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions. The petitioner has been arraigned as accused No.11. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has invited my attention to allegations relating to four different loan accounts. Perusal of the chargesheet shows that apart from the said four loan accounts the allegations against the petitioner relate to other loan accounts. It is disclosed from the chargesheet that apart from recommending loans to other persons the petitioner had himself availed of the loan from the said bank which was released without any security. The allegations have been made in the chargesheet as regards sanction of loan to (i) M/s.Humesh Enterprises (Loan Account No.9107), (ii) Noble Transport Corporation (Loan Account No.2195) and (iii) Classic Transport Corporation (Loan Account No.2193). Perusal of the statement of one Allaudin Ali Shaikh who was an employee of Friends Co-operative Bank Limited discloses the role played by the petitioner in the aforesaid three loan transactions. The loan account No.9107 relates to wife of ex-director Ismail Dosa. The account No.2195 is of ex-director Ismail Dosa. The account No.2193 is again of wife of the said Ismail Dosa. It is alleged that the petitioner is a party to sanction of the loans covered by the said : 5 : 5 : 5 : loan accounts. Illegalities and irregularities as regards sanction of the loan in respect of said accounts have been alleged. As regards these accounts there are no submissions made in this writ petition. 6. As far as the loan account Nos.9017, 2160, 9360 and 9451 are concerned, the submission made by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner is that the statement of one Sunil Kakasaheb Deshmukh does not make out a specific case of fabrication of any particular document or grant of loan in the name of fictitious persons. What is pleaded in this petition is the defence of the petitioner at the time of trial. As pointed out earlier, the allegations and material in the chargesheet against the petitioner is not confined to only four accounts but there are other loan accounts in respect of which allegations have been made. The petitioner was the director of the said bank from 14th August 1996 to 19th March 2001. Perusal of the material forming part of the chargesheet shows that a case is made out for proceeding against the petitioner and therefore, the courts below were justified in rejecting the application for discharge. 7. Writ petition is rejected accordingly. : 6 : 6 : 6 : (A.S. Oka, J)