1 vks IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION .1109 OF 2009 Pune District Judicial Employees Co.Operative Credit Society .. Petitioner. -versus The State of Maharashtra & ors .. Respondents Sugandh B Deshmukh, for the petitioner. Mr. A.S.Gadkari, APP for the State. Ms Revati Mohite-Dere, for Respondent Nos 8,9, ll, l2, l3 & l5. CORAM: Smt. RANJANA DESAI & R. G. KETKAR JJ DATED: 29th June, 2009. P.C. 1. Pune District Judicial Employees Co-operative Credit Society, has filed this petition under article 226 of 2 the Constitution of India. The basic grievance of the petitioner is that the audit report for the period l.4.l999 to 3l.3.2000, showed misappropriation of an amount of Rs.1,10,l7,769/- and order was passed on 20.2.2009 by the fifth respondent ie the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Credit Society, Pune, mentioning therein names of l5 persons as being responsible for the said misappropriation. By the said order the fifth respondent directed Shri. P.R.Ghodake-the sixth respondent herein who is the 9th Special Auditor, Class I, Co-operative Societies, Pune, to take criminal action u/s 409, 420, 406, 465, 467, 468, 477A, l20(b) of IPC, against the said persons. According to the petitioner despite this order on 6.3.2009, the fifth respondent addressed another letter to Shri.Ghodake, mentioning therein names of 7 persons as being responsible for the said misappropriation. The names of the other persons mentioned in the letter dated 20.2.2009, did not find place in this letter and Shri.Ghodake, was directed to register FIR against only 7 persons. Letter dated 6.3.2009 further stated that if 3 apart from the said 7 persons any other persons are found responsible for the misappropriation, then supplementary FIR may be lodged against them. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that there was no reason for respondent No.5 to drop names of the persons whom he had specifically mentioned in his letter dated 20.2.2009. The petitioner’s case therefore is that effort is made to protect some of the accused. 3. Learned APP Shri. A.S.Gadkari, stated that investigation is in full swing and as on today as per written instructions, statement of l5 persons have been recorded and respondent Nos l0 and l4 are arrested. Mr. Gadkari stated that rest of the persons are not traceable. Efforts are being made to trace them. Mr.Gadkari stated that FIR has already been lodged against 7 persons whose names are mentioned in letter dated 6.3.2009. Mr.Gadkari has assured the Court that investigation will be impartial, expeditious and those who are involved in crime, will be brought to books. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, 4 contended that investigating agency has recorded statement of Special Auditor, who has stated that the persons whose names are excluded in letter dated 6.3.2009 are not responsible for the misappropriation. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, therefore, stated that it appears that the investigation is not being conducted properly. 5. Ms Revati Mohite-Dere , who is appearing for the respondent Nos 8, 9, 11 to l3 and l5 stated that the said respondents are merely statutory auditors. They are only supposed to test check on random basis as per section 8l(c) of the Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies Act. She submitted that they are not responsible for the day to day management of the society. Learned counsel, submitted that taking advantage of filing of the present petition, the said respondents are being un-necessarily harassed. 6. At this stage, it is not possible for us to express any view on the investigation so far conducted. We can not monitor the investigation. Investigation is in progress and anything stated by us at this stage may have adverse 5 effect on the investigation. It is not possible for us to give direction as to in what manner investigation should be conducted. Mr. Gadkari learned APP has assured us that the investigation is in full swing and it will reach its logical conclusion. We have already noted that FIR has been lodged. We expect the police to ensure that those against whom they are able to collect material are dealt with in accordance with law. At the same time those who may not really be concerned with the crime in question, should not be un-necessarily harassed. 7. We make it clear that as regards the involvement of any of the accused, we have not expressed any opinion. We leave contentions of all the parties on the merits of the case open. It will be open to the accused to adopt such legal proceedings as they may be advised including challenging the letters dated 20.2.2009 and 6.3.2009 to which we have made reference hereinabove. It will be open for them to move the court for appropriate orders or directions in accordance with law and if such proceedings are adopted, 6 the Courts seized of them will obviously deal with them independently and in accordance with law. Similarly it will be open to the petitioner to take such steps as it may be advised and as may be open to it in law, if the petitioner finds that the police are shielding the culprits. Investigation may be carried out expeditiously and concluded at the earliest. 8. We must also note that Ms Revati Mohite Dere has strenuously denied the statement made by learned APP that the respondents were at any point of time absconding. We note that Ms.Revati Mohite Dere suo- motu appeared after having learnt about this petition and pursuant to arrest of respondent Nos l0 and l4. 9. In view of the above petition stands disposed of. (Smt. RANJANA DESAI, J) (R.G. KETKAR, J)