1 Cri.Appln.Nos. 1916/2011 & 1938/2011 1. FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1916/2011 ( Venkatrao s/o Mansaram Hire (Patil) Vs. The State of Maharashtra ) and CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1938/2011 (Surendra s/o Bhaskar More Vs. The State of Mah. And Anr.) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders. or directions and Registrar’s orders ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. SJ Gaike, Adv. h/for Mr.AR Tiwari & Mr. SP Tiwari, Advs. for respective Applicant/s; Mr. VH Dighe & Mr.KM Suryawanshi, APPs for State in respective matters. *** CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL ,J. DATE : 3 rd May, 2011. 1) Heard both the learned Counsel extensively and finally. 2) The complainant was allured to invest in "Divya Jeewan Swayamrojgar Sewa Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit at Pachora" and consequently he invested Rs.6,50,000 time to time. It was basically, at the impression generated by his brother-in-law, the applicant – Venkatrao Mansaram Hire(Patil), at the time of initial meeting dated 10.11.2008, when the complainant was impressed and influenced to invest in the above society, Surendra Bhaskar More, the accused/applicant was also present. Surendra hails from Bhadgaon, District Jalgaon. Though counsel claims that he was a driver, however, in the application itself his avocation is given as `business’. 2 Cri.Appln.Nos. 1916/2011 & 1938/2011 He was one of the person in enticing the complainant to part with his life-time earnings received as retiral funds from his employer. 3) It is not that the complainant himself was deceived, he, on the promise of receiving commission, asked other employees, friends, relations to invest in the said scheme, who also, believing the complainant, had faced the trauma/buffet and suffered heavy loss. 4) Taking survey of above facts, even if the counsel claims that the accused/applicants have no role, the net-work is to be unearthed. Prime accused has absconded. It is only applicants, who will be in a position to inform of his whereabouts and the details of the investment of received amounts, if any, carried by either these applicants or the mentor. 5) The applications lack merit, dismissed. The observations are prima facie in nature. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/