1 CR.APL NO.3649/2010 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD 25. CRI.APPLN/3649/2010 ( SAYYAD NISAR MURTUZA HASHMI AND ORS V/S THE STATE OF MAH AND ANR ) -------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders Mr. S.J.Salunke, Adv., for the applicant. Mr.K.M.Suryawanshi, APP for State. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE: 27.1.2011 1. Heard. Prosecution (FIR M-Case No.3/2010 dated 2.3.2010) registered with Police Station, Udgir (City), dist. Latur, is sought to be quashed. 2. Counsel submits that the change report of the trust, naming Sayyad Khalil Ahmed as the treasurer is yet not in force ( Page 14) as the change report moved by the complainant or his associate is not yet acted upon. Counsel invites attention to a letter dt.1.11.2004 (page No.28) signed by the Chairman of the Trust to the Branch Manager, State Bank of Hyderabad, informing 2 CR.APL NO.3649/2010 that Syed Khalil Ahmed was authorized to operate College Account for the time being with one signature, however, it also specifies, when regular principal will join his duties, the account will be operated jointly by Mr.Syed Khalil Ahmed - Management Member and Principal of the College. 3. Learned Counsel submits that the amount of scholarship receivable by the student has reached their door as there is no grievance from any of the beneficiary student. The Counsel also submits that the appropriate authority is the Social Welfare Officer, he has also not yet taken action in the matter of so called misappropriation. 4. The gravity of the matter is multiplied as the complainant in his complaint, paragraph no.4, has given specific dates and also quoted the incidents that, under the purported signature of the Principal, the amount was withdrawn and it was deposited in the account of College and, thereafter, it was withdrawn 3 CR.APL NO.3649/2010 for personal benefit of the petitioners herein. 5. The above grievance of Mr.Salunke that the petitioners are still trustees may be correct, however, there was no authorization to have signature of the Principal in the account while transmitting the amount to the beneficiaries who are waiting and also wanting for scholarship, about which the investigator will be making inquiry. 6. In the result, no case to interfere and exercise powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Application dismissed. The observations are prima facie in nature. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE ... agp/3649-10crapl