1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5788 OF 2009 Balkrishna Machhindra Koshti .. Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mr. Manoj A. Patil for the Applicant. Mrs. P. P. Shinde, A. P. P. for the Respondent-State. CORAM : S.J. KATHAWALLA,J. [VACATION JUDGE] DATED : DECEMBER 26, 2009. P.C. : This is an application for grant of Anticipatory Bail moved by the Applicant in C.R.No 127 of 2009 registered with Laxmi Puri Police Station, Kolhapur for the offence punishable under sections 409, 420, 467 and 202 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The Applicant had earlier also moved an application seeking anticipatory bail before the learned Sessions Judge, Kolhapur, which was rejected by a detailed order dated 18 th 2 December, 2009. 3. The Applicant has submitted that he is a Government servant and posted at Panchayat Samiti Karveer. He was assigned to look after the Sarva-Shiksha Abhiyan at Paachgaon. One Mr. Subhash Satpute was working under him as subject specialist. From 19 th September, 2007 the person appointed as Accounts Officer was one Mr. Suryavanshi. Mr. Suryavanshi was shifted from the Zillha Parishad during the period 28 th November 2007 to 7 th September 2008. The Applicant as head of Sarva-Shiksha Abhiyan had entrusted the charge of looking after the accounts to Mr. Subhash Satpute. Cheques were issued to Mr. Satpute by the Applicant alongwith Mr. A. T. More, Extension Education Officer. The Applicant did not inspect the necessary accounts/records of the year 2009-2010 because he had demanded the same orally from Mr. Satpute but not provided by Mr. Satpute. According to the Applicant he has not maintained any copies of any accounts or any bills or vouchers in respect of which he issued cheques to Mr. Satpute. He has stated that for the purpose of internal audit fixed on 17 th November, 2009, on 23 rd October, 2009, he had asked Mr. 3 Satpute to produce all the records from the year 2001 till date. However, Mr. Satpute failed to do so and is absconding since 7 th November 2009. The Applicant has prepared a panchanama to this effect in the presence of the colleagues of Mr. Satpute. 4. The Applicant submits that in fact he has filed a complaint on 27 th November, 2009 with the J.M.F.C., Kolhapur against the said Mr. Satpute who had absconded along with the records including cheque books, bills, vouchers etc. He submits that an enquiry committee was appointed by the Zilla Parishad and that he appeared before the enquiry committee and answered all their questions to the extent possible. The Applicant submits that from enquiry/investigations it is revealed that Mr. Satpute has misappropriated an amount of Rs. 40,61,635/-. Thirteen cheques aggregating to the said amount of Rs. 40,61,635/- were issued to Mr. Satpute by the Applicant and the said Mr. More during the period from 1 st April, 2009 to 31 st October, 2009. The Applicant has submitted that he signed the thirteen cheques between the period 1 st April, 2009 to 31 st October, 2009 because the same were signed by Mr. More, the Education Extension Officer and the entire responsibility of that was of Mr. 4 More he being the Education Extension Officer. The Applicant submits that he is not in any manner involved in the offence of misappropriation of funds nor he has played any role in collusion or connivance with Mr. Satpute or Mr. More. He has submitted that he is falsely implicated in this case. 5. The learned A. P. P. for the state has opposed the application of the applicant seeking anticipatory bail. She has pointed out that admittedly Mr. Suryavanshi the Accounts Officer, was out only between 20 th November, 2007 and 7 th September, 2008. Mr. Suryavanshi resumed his duties on 7 / 8 th September, 2008. The Applicant ought to have forthwith withdrawn the temporary charge pertaining to accounts from Mr. Satpute and restored the same with Mr. Suryavanshi, the Accounts Officer. However, the Applicant failed and neglected to do so and allowed Mr. Satpute who was not an accounts person to continue with the charge of the accounts. This left Mr. Suryavanshi, the Accounts Officer, with no other alternative but to register a complaint with the Zillha Parishad pursuant to which a show cause notice dated 23 rd March, 2009 was issued to the applicant calling upon him to explain as to why the 5 charge pertaining to the accounts was not handed over to Mr. Suryavanshi and was continued with Mr. Satpute despite Mr. Suryavanshi, Accounts Officer, having resumed his duties. Though the Applicant gave his reply to the show cause notice immediately on the next date i.e. on 24 th March, 2009 stating that he has continued allowing Mr. Satpute to handle the accounts even after Mr. Suryavanshi has resumed his duties for the purpose of maintaining continuity upto the end of the financial year ending i.e. upto 31 st March, 2009, the Applicant even thereafter failed to take charge from Mr. Satpute and handover the same to Mr. Suryavanshi. In fact the Applicant issued cheques aggregating to Rs. 40,61,635/- during the period of 1 st April, 2009 to 31 st October, 2009 to Mr. Satpute who has misappropriated the entire sum and ultimately absconded with the money as well as the records. It is therefore clear that the Applicant by not reverting the charge pertaining to the accounts from Mr. Satpute who was not an accounts person to Mr. Surayavanshi, the Accounts Officer, and by continuing to issue cheques aggregating to lakhs of rupees to Mr. Satpute without checking the records/accounts has played an important role as regards the amounts misappropriated by the said Mr. Satpute 6 and others. It is submitted that the complaint filed by the Applicant against Mr. Satpute and the panchanama prepared by the Applicant can in no way assist the Applicant. It cannot be ruled out that he did all this to cover his tracks and give an impression that the Applicant is not involved in any manner qua the said offences and the said Mr. Satpute and others are the sole culprits. 6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned Advocate appearing for the Applicant as well as the arguments of the learned A. P. P. I have also gone through the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kolhapur. Paragraph 5 of the said order dated 16 th December, 2009 is reproduced hereunder : “ Therefore, the role of the applicant here is that he is entrusted with the cheque books, stamps seal of his own with the accused No.2 Mr. More, without following norms or proper sanction from the higher authority, in the custody of the accused No.3. The accused have not disowned the signatures on the cheque. The amount is too huge which is alleged to be mis appropriated. Further inquiry is in progress......Under such circumstances, the applicant does not deserve the benefit of anticipatory bail as proper investigation is necessary. The record is also yet to be received for proper investigation. Therefore, 7 under such circumstances, I did not find it a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, hence, the same deserves to be rejected..” 7. From the aforesaid facts and circumstances, in my view, the fact that the Applicant allowed Mr. Satpute who was not a accounts person to continue being in-charge of the Accounts even after the Accounts Officer resumed on 7th September, 2008 prima facie establishes that the Applicant has acted hand in glove with Mr. Satpute and others in misappropriating the huge amount of Rs. 40,61,635/-. The argument that the charge of looking after accounts, given to Mr. Satpute was not transfered to Mr. Suryavanshi the Accounts Officer, despite Mr. Suryavanshi having resumed his job on 7th September, 2008 to allow continuity upto year ending 31st March, 2009 is not at all convincing. Even if this argument is accepted, there is no reason as to why the Applicant continued to allow Mr. Satpute to retain the charge of looking after the accounts even after 31st March, 2009 and issued thirteen cheques to Mr. Satpute aggregating to Rs. 40,61,636/- which amount is misappropriated by Mr. Satpute and who ultimately absconded from 7th November, 2009. The learned Advocate appearing for 8 the Applicant has submitted before me that after receiving the show cause notice in March 2009, the Applicant had in writing asked Mr. Satpute to hand over the charge alongwith the necessary records to Mr. Suryavanshi the Accounts Officer, but Mr. Satpute failed to obey the order/directions of the Applicant. If that be so the Applicant ought to have immediately stopped issuing cheques as sought by Mr. Satpute. Instead cheques aggregating to Rs. 40,61,636/- are issued by the Applicant to Mr. Satpute after Mr. Satpute allegedly disobeyed the orders of the Applicant. This further establishes the involvement/role played by the Applicant in collusion with Mr. Satpute and others in misappropriating the said amount of Rs. 40,61,636/- by issuing thirteen cheques in the name of Mr. Satpute. 8. In view thereof the role of the Applicant certainly needs to be carefully investigated for which his custodial interrogation is necessary. The amount misappropriated is huge. Mr. Satpute is absconding till date. The learned Sessions Judge was correct in rejecting the anticipatory bail application of the Applicant. Under the circumstances, I pass the following order : 9 :: O R D E R :: i. The application for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected. ii. Parties to act on a copy of this order duly authenticated by the Shirestedar of this Court. (S. J. KATHAWALLA, J.)