((-1-)) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2444 OF 2006 Satish Raghunath Thakre Petitioner versus State of Maharashtra Respondent ALONG WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2426 OF 2006 Krishna Pandurang Gandhe Petitioner versus State of Maharashtra Respondent Shri A.P.Mundargi, Sr.Counsel i/by Shri Prashant G. Badole and Shri Ganesh Gole for applicants. Mrs.M.H.Mhatre, APP for respondents. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 4th September 2006 PC : 1. The applicants are original accused nos.14 and 15 in C.R.No.I-101/2006 registered at Wagle Estate Police Station, Thane for the offences punishable under sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 474, 420 R/W 34 IPC. 2. Applicant in Criminal Application No.2444 of ((-2-)) 2006 is working as Accounts Director in the Charity Commissioner’s Office at Worli, Mumbai. It appears that the amounts which are lying deposited in the office of Charity Commissioner at Mumbai, were sought to be invested in various term deposits with nationalised banks. It further appears that one of the banks namely State Bank of India forwarded a proposal i.e. if the amounts are deposited with them the interest would be to the tune of 7.55% p.a. or more. It further appears that the amounts were, therefore, deposited with the SBI but with it’s Wagle Estate Branch, at Thane. This is how the entire complaint proceeds. 3. Thereafter, thinking that the amounts would be lying idle at the said Branch and with a view to assist another public charitable trust which is registered with the office of Charity Commissioner, M.S; Mumbai, that some communication appears to have been addressed permitting crediting the amounts to the account of public charitable trust. The complainant bank alleges that it acted on such instructions and thereafter credited the sum to the account of the trust. ((-3-)) 4. The allegation is that there is no such authority and the accused have conspired together and have after forging documents, committed the above offence pertaining to public funds. 5. The applicant has been arrested and is in custody since the date of arrest i.e. 23rd May 2006. 6. First application for enlarging on bail prior to the charge sheet was rejected. Now, the charge sheet is filed. 7. Shri Mundargi - learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant in Criminal Application No.2444 of 2006 submits that the applicant is Accounts Director and employed as such in the office of Charity Commissioner. As far as applicant is concerned, there is no allegation that the investment is an act of the applicant alone. The investment of funds is pursuant to the authority vested in the Charity Commissioner under the Act as also the Rules. Thus, no decisions pertaining to investment of funds and that too to the tune of crores of rupees, are taken unilaterally by the applicant. Ultimately, proposals of bankers were scrutinised ((-4-)) and verified and appropriate recommendations were made by the applicant in his capacity as Accounts Officer. Thereupon, the decision is of the superiors. Even if the applicant may have signed some cheques, it is pursuant to such authority which is vested in him by the superiors and in accordance with proper documents and resolutions. In such circumstances, when the applicant is not accused of either forging the documents or allowing monies to be invested or thereafter to be credited, then after investigations are complete and and there being no antecedents, the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 8. Insofar as Criminal Application No.2426 of 2006 is concerned, Shri Mundargi contends that the applicant is employed as an Accountant with the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA). The annexures to the application would demonstrate that the applicant has, in his capacity as such, verified and scrutinised several proposals and has recommended that the amounts be invested with State Bank of India, Wagle Estate Branch, at Thane and that would be at the interest rate which is specified in the proposal of SBI.. As the proposals were forwarded in turn to higher authorities and upon superiors and higher ((-5-)) authorities duly approving them, appropriate communications were addressed. He submits that the letter which was addressed by him coupled with the cheque to which he is one of the signatories, is only from the SRA.. That authorises investment and that is how for one year the amount is invested with the SBI.. A bare perusal of the letter would demonstrate that the same is pursuant to the resolutions which are passed by SRA.. 9. A further letter of 7th February 2006 wherein the applicant is allegedly informing the Branch Manager to credit the amount to the account of the trust, is bearing the signature of the applicant but according to Shri Mundargi, the same are not the signatures of the applicant nor those are the documents from the custody of the SRA.. In other words, the letter heads do not appear to be genuine. 10. The learned APP in points out that the affidavits filed by the investigating machinery would demonstrate that the applicants had a crucial role to play inasmuch as public funds which are invested with nationalised banks, have been credited to the account of a public ((-6-)) charitable trust and when there were no instructions to do so officially. That apart, the instructions were questionable and doubtful and that is how the complaint of the Branch Manager proceeds. In such circumstances and when the fraud is to the tune of crores of rupees and the applicants have a specific role attributed to him, then the present applications be dismissed. 11. With the assistance of Shri Mundargi and learned APP I have perused the application so also the statement of the complainant. I have also referred to the documents which are part of the charge sheet. I have also referred to the copy of one of the proposals which are annexed to this application. The statement of the complainant is that accused no.15 Krishna Gandhe has, while working as Accounts Officer, without any scrutiny and verification of the fax received from the bank, has signed the cheques of Rs.3.00 crores and Rs.7.00 crores and thereafter received monies from one Ghanshyam Gupta. The affidavit filed in reply also states that the applicants have issued two cheques without verifying the credentials of the persons and no communication was given to the bank nor any documents verified. Prima facie, from the documents annexed to the ((-7-)) complaint which form part of the charge sheet, it appears that, the applicants have signed the cheques pursuant to the decisions taken by their superiors but invested the amounts with SBI, Wagle Estate Branch, at Thane. As far as applicants are concerned, their role is either of forwarding the cheques pursuant to the proposals mooted or signing them along with some forwarding letters. However, as far as fax received from the bank, allegedly, is concerned there does not appear to be any role attributed to the applicants specifically. Although, the allegation is that the applicant in Criminal Application No.2426 of 2006 has signed the letters authorising crediting the account of the public charitable trust, there does not appear to be any role attributed to the applicant- accused in the decision being taken in that behalf. The initial documents/proposals being from the officers like the applicant and the Accounts Department, as far as further decisions are taken, the applicants have not been attributed any role. In such circumstances, prima facie, it does not appear that the applicants have forged and cheated the concerned authorities. 12. In the above circumstances, applicants’ ((-8-)) applications for enlargement on bail after investigations are complete and charge sheet is filed, deserve to be granted. 13. In my view, there does not appear to be any investigation into the complaints made by public bodies namely SRA.. Merely because the applicant in Criminal Application No.2426 of 2006 has lodged the complaint, it does not mean that he being one of the accused, the complaint from the SRA does not require any investigation. For going to the root of the matter and probe the role of all, it is desirable that the complaint is probed and investigated so that the link between the persons who are allegedly facilitating such investments and credit of public funds, is established completely and action is taken against them not just under criminal law but otherwise. Criminal Application Nos.2444 of 2006 and 2426 of 2006 are granted in the following terms. 14. ORDER :- (i) The applicants in both criminal applications shall be enlarged on bail in connection with C.R.No.I-101 of 2006 registered with Wagle Estate ((-9-)) Police Station, Thane Station, subject to furnishing a personal bond of Rs.15,000/- (Rs.Fifteen thousand only) each with one or two local sureties in the like sum; (ii) The applicants shall report to Wagle Estate Police Station, Thane once in a fortnight; (iii) The applicants shall deposit their passports, if any, with Wagle Estate Police Station, Thane. Deposit of pass port is condition precedent; (iv) The bail is granted subject to condition that the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement or threat to any prosecution witnesses and shall not in any manner tamper with prosecution evidence. (v) The applicant shall co-operate with the Trial Court for expeditious disposal of the trial. Any attempt by the applicant to delay the trial may be a ground for cancellation of bail. (vi) Any observation/s made in this order shall not be constructed as any finding or any expression of opinion on the merits of the case ((-10-)) at the time of trial. (vii) Application is disposed of in above terms. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)