1 Cri.Appln.no.4841/2010 1. FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4841/2010. (Baban Shridhar Dixit Vs. The State of Mah. and Anr.) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders. or directions and Registrar’s orders ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.SB Deshpande, Adv. for applicant; Mr.KM Suryawanshi, APP for State. Mr.AB Gaikwad, Adv. for Respndent No.2. *** CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL ,J. DATE : 24 th February, 2011. ... 1) Heard. 2) The accused/applicant, a Head Master in the School, seeks pre-arrest bail in Crime No.6/2010 registered at the instance of Secretary of the management – Ahilya Devi Shikshan Prasarak Mandal at Bhatepuri, Dist. Jalna. 3) Elaborate submissions are made, touching to the merits of the case, creditability of the accused/applicant, may-hem in the educational institution, preparation of false records. 4) Learned Counsel representing the original complainant(Respondent No.2) has a grievance that after obtaining the interim protection dated 25.11.2010, the accused/applicant surreptitiously kept the matter in abeyance and it was only 2 Cri.Appln.no.4841/2010 at the instance of the respondent that the matter was moved to be heard today. I find, record reflects accordingly. 5) The principal bone of contention is, the resolution dated 8.1.2008, claimed to have been passed by the School Committee, is not so passed, only it bears the purported signature of Jadhav, Member of the Committee. He has denied to have signed any resolution. It was expected of the applicant/accused to have produced or called from the management, the resolution book, to illustrate and to dispel the allegations that no resolution was taken. Even if the Bank account was opened by applicant, certified by Block Education Officer, based on such resolution, however, the complainant was agitating since inception against the mis-deeds of the accused/applicant, it cannot be said that the complainant was in slumber or did not challenge the Resolution. It is said even the Resolution dated 1.4.2008 was bogus. 6) On 2nd October, 2010, the complainant approached the police concerned, however, no action nor cognizance was taken. He even approached the learned Superintendent of Police, however, no heed was paid to his representations. 7) It may be that the accused/applicant is 3 Cri.Appln.no.4841/2010 a whistle-blower, with other teachers in the institution, to bring on record and surface the illegalities/mis-deeds committed by the management, and particularly the complainant. However, the record for the present illustrate, without there being any resolution, bank account was opened, which the Block Education Officer has signed presumably under the pretext that there was genuine resolution dated 8.1.2008. 8) The matter was reported to the Education Officer, Block Education Officer and by letter on 15.7.2010 a detailed report was furnished pointing the deficiencies in conducting the affairs of the school. The role attributed to the applicant/accused can be confined that he has not maintained the accounts of the Mid-Day Meal Scheme and National Mid-Day Meal Scheme. The purchases allegedly shown, are not matching to the items bought. The accused/applicant has withdrawn from the bank amounts without accounting the same. Though certain irregularities pointed by the authorities, can be cured by calling the accused/applicant. However, the record, to which reference is given, is still in the custody of the applicant/accused. 9) The learned Counsel for the applicant/accused submits that by virtue 4 Cri.Appln.no.4841/2010 of the communication dated 15.2.2010 when he was put under suspension, he has handed over all the record to the management or the In-charge Head Master Shri Yadav. Conspicuously, there is no such details of record or charge-patti to which reference is given in the letter. 10)Taking survey of above facts, interim protection granted to the applicant/accused has been misused by him. He has not coordinated the Investigating Officer, nor furnished the record. Prima facie involvement of the accused/applicant is surfacing, the interim protection dated 25.11.2010 is vacated. 11)Criminal Application rejected (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/