The Bombay High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, whereby the latter had dismissed the Criminal Revision Application filed by the Petitioners. A single-judge bench of this Court comprising Hon’ble Justice Kishore C. Sant held that at the present stage, the evidence of the accused cannot be taken into consideration.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner is an accused in the offence registered on the basis of an FIR lodged by one Ashok Bharatrao Kamble, an Auditor, who conducted an audit of one Yeshwant Co-operative Housing Society, Udgir. The allegation against the accused no.1 is that while acting as administrator, she had kept the record with herself and committed misappropriation as per the particulars given in the FIR. The allegation against these petitioners is that they approved the expenses in connivance with accused no.1.
The learned trial Judge, by considering the material prima-facie, recorded that a case is made out against the accused to proceed with the prosecution. All the accused persons filed an application for discharge under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court rejected the application.
The present petitioners, then, filed Criminal Revision Application. The learned Sessions Judge recorded that when the Administrator was appointed to the society, accused no.1 had illegally conducted the meeting, passed resolutions and gave sanction for expenses incurred by the co-accused, and rejected the Criminal Revision Application. Hence, this petition.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that considering the reports prepared by the parties under Section 88 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, the liability is only upon accused no.1, no liability is fastened upon the present petitioner. He further submitted that there is no amount transferred to the account of this petitioner.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Learned Counsel for the respondent supported the order passed by the lower Court by submitting that at this stage, the defence of the accused cannot be considered and only the material which is produced by the prosecution at the stage needs to be considered. In this case, there are allegations with material showing prima facie involvement of the accused/petitioner.
Observations of the Court
The Court observed that at this stage, a report under Section 88 of the Co-operative Societies Act cannot be considered as it would be a matter of defence by the accused. Further, the Court did not find any perversity or illegality committed in the order passed by the learned Revisional Court.
The decision of the Court:
The Bombay High Court, dismissing the petition, held that there is no merit in the petition.
Case Title: Maroti & Anr. vs The State of Maharashtra
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Kishore C. Sant
Case no.: CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 134 OF 2022
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Chavan P. S.
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. P. N. Kutti
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
