1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3585 OF 2009 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4063 OF 2009 Rakesh S/o.Tilakraj Maini, Age-47 years, Occu-Service, R/o.305, Blue Diamond, Juhu-Tara Road, Santacruz, Mumbai-49 APPLICANT VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, 2. The Commissioner of Police, Aurangabad. RESPONDENTS Mr.Satish Maneshine, with Mr.Sandeep Deshmukh and Mr.N.S.Ghanekar, learned counsel for applicant. Mr.K.B.Chaudhry, learned APP for respondent/State. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 21/11/2009 PER COURT : 1. By the present application, the applicant herein has prayed this Court for releasing him on anticipatory bail in case of his arrest in connection with CR No.105/2009, registered in Jinsi Police Station for an offence punishable u/s. 406, 420 r/w. 34 of IPC. 2 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the applicant followed by the submissions of learned APP and also the counsel appearing for the original complainant. 3. It appears that an offence was registered in Jinsi Police Station, of District Aurangabad for an offence punishable u/s. 406, 420 r/w. 34 of IPC on the complaint of one Sachin Vaijanath Detane who was working as a Local Manager in the office of the company Bharat Capital Services, having their Local Office At Aurangabad. It is alleged in the said complaint that the complainant was serving as Local Manager in the Branch Office of Aurangabad during the period December 2008 to June 2009. At that time, the Branch Office was working as a Corporate Agent for two insurance companies where 200 employees were working. Those employees who were appointed in the said branch office were working on commission as well as on the salary basis. It is alleged that without any information to these employees, who were working in the company, their services all of a sudden were terminated by this Branch Office, and the company has started to wind up the business. At that time, the Corporate Manager was one Ranjan Thakur, who is resident of one Zarkhand. On inquiry with him, it is informed that no PPF numbers were given to the persons who were working in the company neither TDS certificates were issued to them. Their salary was also not paid by this Branch Office at Aurangabad and thus even though their services were obtained by the Local Manager, but inspite of their services, their salaries were not paid, hence it amounts to cheating 3 and criminal breach of trust likewise the deduction of their PPF from their alleged salary was not credited to their account and TDS certificates were also not forwarded alongwith challan to the Government. Hence alleged offence. 4. In the background of this complaint, heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned APP as well as the counsel appearing for the original complainant. According to learned APP appearing for the State, to gain the services without any payment/salary and not to deposit the PPF and also not to allot the PPF numbers of these employees as well as non issuance of TDS certificate is covered under the offence u/s. 406, 420 of IPC. 5. Considering the submissions across the bar, first it is to be considered that it appears that this is a dispute between the Officers of the Company at one side and the alleged employees working in the Branch Office at other side. This dispute squarely covered under the provisions of The Labour Act as well as The Industrial Dispute Act. Certainly, no action taken by these terminated employees in the Labour Court or in the Industrial Court, but straight way lodged the complaint against the Branch Manager, who is having his office at Bombay. This company is having 34 offices at different places all over India. 6. It is not a case that the employment of these employees was at the hands of the applicant as a sole Proprietor of the Company. If it 4 is so, then the letter of appointment issued in the individual capacity as the Proprietor of the company, the matter would have otherwise. But here an act on the part of the applicant is of an Agent and not in his individual capacity. In the premise, if any offence about non credit of PPF amount, then the company to be held responsible for that after completing the formalities about issuance of notices at the hands of the Commissionarate of the Provident Fund. Likewise, if there is no deduction of the TDS, then the company is held to be liable for that and not the applicant in his individual capacity. If there is non payment of salary, it is a civil dispute where the services were engaged on commission basis or on salary basis. Letter of appointments are on record. It can not be disputed that before termination of the services, the employees need not to be consulted as it is not the mandate of Law. In the premise, so far as dispute between the parties is of civil nature and any liability is there, the liability lies with the company and not with the individual employee of the company. The availability of record which require to be considered at the time of investigation, for that purpose record to be made available from the Head Office and for that purpose no custodial interrogation is required. In these circumstances, case made out to use the discretion to enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest. Hence following is the order : O R D E R 1. The interim protection granted on 14/10/2009 is hereby extended for the period of 4 weeks. Within meantime, the applicant 5 may apply for regular bail. 2. The applicant to attend the office of Jinsi Police Station on every Saturday in between 12.00 noon to 2.00 p.m. till his attendance is dispensed with by the Investigation Officer. 3. The application stands disposed of in above terms. 4. It is informed that the passport of the applicant is deposited with the Investigation Officer. It will remain with Investigation Officer till the investigation in the crime will be over. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/NOV 2009/cri-appl-3585-09