1 acd IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 627 OF 2010 Anandkumar Ganeshram Mandan ... Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent ... Mr. A.P. Mundargi, Sr.Advocate, with Ms. Kranti S.S.Anand for the applicant. Ms. M.H. Mhatre, APP for the State. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATED : 8th March 2010 P.C. 1. By this application the applicant seeks bail in connection with the C.R.No. 151 of 2009 registered at Nerul Police Station and investigated by the Economic Offence Wing, Navi Mumbai for an alleged offence punishable under sections- 420,465, 467, 468 and 471 read with section-34 of IPC. 2. On 5.6.2009, one Om Shankar Pandey, the Vice-President of Mannor Impex Pvt.Ltd.(in short “the company”) filed a F.I.R. against the applicant stating that on 24.11.2008 the company had imported Pigeon 2 Peas(Tur dal) weighing 606.2 metric tons. The said consignment was cleared by their agent and stored at the premises of M/s Vishal Ice and Cold Storage Ltd, Navimumbai. The present applicant was appointed as a broker for sale of the said consignment on 1% brokerage. 3. The applicant is alleged to have sold the said consignment without the knowledge and consent of the company. On the company knowing this the applicant promised the company to pay Rs. 2,00,00,000/- and gave a cheque for Rs.2 Crores. The company noticed that the cheque given was drawn on non operative bank and therefore filed a F.I.R. In the subsequent statement the complainant has admitted that the cheque was not drawn on a non operative bank but was drawn on ICICI Bank. The cheque however, was dishonoured, and the company has issued a notice under section-138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 4. As regards the contention that the goods were sold by the applicant without the knowledge and consent of the company, admittedly the applicant was appointed as a broker and whether the said applicant had an authority to sell the said goods without the consent of the company is a disputed question. In any event, in the negotiations which took place between the company and the applicant, the applicant had agreed to pay the price of rupees two crores on 3 company issuing a antedated invoices regarding the sale effected by the applicant and company issued such invoices. Therefore, the act of sale, assuming it was without authority has been ratified by the company. What remains now is a civil dispute between the parties. 5. The applicant was arrested on 17.6.2009 and he is in custody for nearly eight months. The investigation has been completed and the chargesheet has also been filed. No apprehension has been expressed that in the event the applicant is released on bail he would not be available for trial and/or he would abscond. In view of this, the applicant can be granted bail. 6. The applicant be released on bail in connection with C.R. No.151 of 2009 mentioned above, on applicant furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with one or two solvent sureties for the aggregate amount of Rs.1,00,000/- subject to a condition that the applicant shall not tamper with prosecution evidence and shall attend the Magistrate’s Court on dates fixed by the said court. Breach of any of the conditions would result in the cancellation of bail. (D.G. KARNIK,J.)