1 Cri.Appln.No.4455/2011 fmp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4455 OF 2011 Uddhavbhai Purushottam Patil ... APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & anr. ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri N.B. Suryawanshi, Advocate for the applicant Shri B.J. Sonawane, A.P.P. for respondents ..... CORAM : U.D. SALVI, J. DATED : 20th October, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard. Perused. The applicant/ accused, the Accountant of the Shahada Municipal Council, has moved this application for anticipatory bail in the Criminal Case registered at C.R. No.74/2011, under Sections 120-B, 166, 167, 171, 403, 406, 408, 409, 465, 467, 468, 471, 477-A, 420, 500-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Shahada Police Station on 9.5.2011. 2 Cri.Appln.No.4455/2011 fmp 2. Rule 42 of Chapter IV in Maharashtra Municipal Councils Accounts Code, 1971 spells out the duties of the Accountant. The Accountant is expected to verify the correctness, budgetary provision and sanction of the competent officer in respect of the bill or voucher and satisfy himself about the said aspects before such bill or voucher is tendered before the Chief Officer for the purposes of obtaining sanction to it. 3. Learned A.P.P. pointed out that the Accountant was enjoined by the Rule 42 of the said Code to verify the correctness of the details appearing in the voucher made for disbursing the advance to the Contractor M/s Ajinkya Bioferts (the accused No.8 in the present case) before it was tendered for obtaining sanction to it from the Chief Officer. According to him, it was the duty of the Accountant to make necessary endorsement on the concerned voucher for payment of advance to the Contractor recording the fact that the payment of advance was in violation of the agreement dated 14.10.2005 entered between the Municipal Council and the Contractor and this duty was not discharged by the Accountant, in collusion with the other accused in order to facilitate the payment of the advance in violation of the said agreement. He further pointed out that, General Body resolution No.9, dated 1.8.2005 precedes the said agreement dated 14.10.2005 and as such, it could not 3 Cri.Appln.No.4455/2011 fmp have governed the embargo on the payment of the advance stipulated at clause 24 of the said agreement. Palpably, therefore, he argued, the applicant/ accused, the Accountant had not verified the particulars in the voucher concerning the payment of advance. 4. In light of these submissions, the applicant/ accused prayed for withdrawal of the present application. 5. Permission is granted to withdraw the present application. The application stands rejected as being withdrawn. ( U.D. SALVI, J. ) fmp/cria4455.2011