1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1224 OF 2010 Prakash Ramakant Kamat ... Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents Mrs. Vidya Manjrekar Pradhan for the Applicant. Mr. J. P. Kharge, A.P.P. for the Respondent No.1-State. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : MARCH 26, 2010. P.C. By the present Application, the Applicant challenges the concurrent orders passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate’s 5th Court at Dadar, Mumbai, in C. C. No. 5/I & R/2008 thereby dismissing the complaint filed by the present Applicant and the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge at Sewree, Mumbai thereby dismissing the Revision filed. 2. The complaint was filed by the present Applicant that he had opened a Saving Bank Account with Union Bank of India, Dadar Branch in the names of the Applicant, his wife and his mother jointly which was changed in collusion with the 2 accused solely in the name of the Accused No.1 i.e. the wife of the present Applicant. It is also alleged that in the said account the name was also changed to the maiden name of the Accused No.1. 3. From the perusal of the orders passed by both the Courts, it would reveal that there were two accounts in the same Branch, one was jointly operated by the Applicant, his mother and the Accused No.1. The second account was jointly in the name of the Accused No.1 and her son. Both the Courts have found that the Accused No.1 had made the application to Accused No.2 to change her name and address in the account which was jointly in her name and in the name of her son. It has been found that since the identification code was common, inadvertently, the said change was carried out in both the accounts. It has further been found that, however, after the Applicant brought this fact to the notice of the Bank Authorities, the error was corrected, restoring the original position. It has also been found that during the period when the names of the present Applicant and his mother were deleted from the account till its restoration, no withdrawal has been made by the Accused No.1 from the said account. 4. In view of the aforesaid position, no error has been 3 made by the two Courts in the concurrent orders. Hence, I do not find that the Courts below had committed any error while passing the said orders. Hence, the present Application is rejected. [ B.R. GAVAI, J. ]