1 Cri.Appln.Nos. 454/11 & 315/11 1. FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.454/2011. (Sandeep s/o Murlidhar Pawar Vs. The State of Mah) with CRIMINAL APPLILATION NO.315/2011 (Balaji Dhanraj Jadhavar Vs. The State of Mah.) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders. or directions and Registrar’s orders ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.SG Jadhavar & Mr. UB Bondar, Advs. in respective Criminal Applications for applicant; Mr.VHDighe, APP for State. *** CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL ,J. DATE : 24 th February, 2011. ... 1) Heard. 2) The applicant – Sandeep Pawar, posing to be an educated unemployed youth, applied for the contract work to the tune of Rs. 13,16,446/- The approval letter bears signature of Additional Chief Executive Officer – Balaji Murlidhar Mohan. However, since unauthorized person approached the Executive Officer for collecting the balance of the amount, suspicion erupted and consequently, the record was verified and surprisingly was notice that the Additional CEO – Balaji Murlidhar Mohan did not sign in approving the contract to the accused/applicant. 2 Cri.Appln.Nos. 454/11 & 315/11 3) The learned APP points that the registration certificate dated 13.8.2008 in the name of applicant – Sandeep shows his specimen signature. However the contract or the agreement with the department does not match to the said signature, but somebody else has signed as Sandeep Pawar (applicant). Primarily, I find substance in such contention. It was canvassed that without authority, the applicant has entrusted the work to a Sub-Contractor, which has been specifically inhibited. 4) The above aspect of the matter, does not call for extension of interim protection in favour of the applicant/accused, as the deception, forgery to the document in getting the contract by mis- representing the fact is explicit. Hence, the application is rejected, interim protection vacated. 5) So far as applicant – Balaji Dhanraj Jadhavar (Criminal Application No. 315/2011) is concerned, he has no nexus to the alleged forgery carried by the principal contractor – Sandeep Pawar. He has, believing in the activities of Sandeep, carried the work, may be in the capacity as Sub-Contractor, however, he could not be said to be aware of any inhibition against said Sandeep Pawar and consequently, custodial 3 Cri.Appln.Nos. 454/11 & 315/11 interrogation of applicant – Balaji Dhanraj Jadhavar is not warranted. The interim protection dated 31.1.2011 with the attendance conditions is made absolute. The attendance conditions to remain in force till 30th June, 2011. 6) Criminal Application No.315/2011 of Balaji Jadhavar allowed in above terms. Criminal Application No.454/2011 of Sandeep Murlidhar Mohan is rejected. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/