Bombay High Court
Amarsingh Shivajirao Pandit vs The State Of Maharashtra on 29 November, 2016
Bench: Z.A. Haq
(1) Cri. W.P. No. 1337 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD.
Criminal Writ Petition No. 1337 of 2016
District : Beed
Amarsingh Shivajirao Pandit,
Age : 50 years,
Occupation : Agriculture,
R/o. 'Shiv-chhatra',
Subhash Road, Beed,
Taluka & District Beed. .. Petitioner.
versus
The State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Inspector,
City Police Station, Beed,
Taluka & District Beed. .. Respondent.
............
Mr. N.B. Khandare, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. A.B. Girase, Public Prosecutor, for the
respondent.
............
CORAM : Z.A. HAQ, J.
DATE : 29TH NOVEMBER 2016
ORAL ORDER:
Heard Adv. Mr. N.B. Khandare for the
petitioner and the Public Prosecutor Mr. A.B. Girase
for the respondent - State of Maharashtra.
02. The petitioner (Ex-Director of Co-operative
(2) Cri. W.P. No. 1337 of 2016
Bank) has assailed the order passed by the Sessions
Court dismissing the Revision Application and
maintaining the order passed by the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate rejecting the application filed
by the applicant and other co-accused under Section
239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying
for discharge from the prosecution for the offence
under Section 406 and 420 of Indian Penal Code.
03. The prosecution is launched against the
petitioner and others including 23 persons who were
Directors of the Co-operative Bank for offence under
Section 406 and 420 of Indian Penal Code on the
accusation that the audit report of 2010 and 2011
shows misappropriation and illegalities in the
transactions of the Co-operative Bank and the Board
of Directors was responsible for it. It is alleged
that huge amount was given as loan without following
the guidelines and bye-laws and without obtaining
appropriate securities.
04. The contention on behalf of the petitioner
is that the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act,
1960 is a complete Code in itself and it provides for
the mechanism for action against the erring
Directors. It is further submitted that the
petitioner has placed on record documentary evidence
to show that the amount of loan which was given by
the Co-operative Bank has been either repaid or is
(3) Cri. W.P. No. 1337 of 2016
being repaid in instalments regularly. The learned
Advocate has argued that the complaint does not show
that the ingredients necessary to constitute offence
under Section 406 and 420 of Indian Penal Code exist
to enable the State to prosecute the petitioner.
05. At this stage, it is required to be seen
whether the complaint / first information report
discloses existence of prima facie case for
prosecution. The contents of complaint dated 02nd
October 2013 prima facie shows that the accusations
are based on Auditor's report. At the time of
hearing, on query about any enquiry under Section 88
of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, the
learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the
enquiry under Section 88 of Maharashtra Co-operative
Societies Act, 1960 is conducted and enquiry report
is submitted. The learned Public Prosecutor has
submitted that the report of enquiry under Section 88
of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 also
shows existence of prima facie material against the
petitioner. It is unexplained why the report of
enquiry under Section 88 of Maharashtra Co-operative
Societies Act, 1960 is not produced on record by the
petitioner and because of this, the submission made
by the learned Public Prosecutor as above can be
considered.
06. In the above facts, I do not find any
(4) Cri. W.P. No. 1337 of 2016
infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. The
Writ Petition is dismissed. In the circumstances,
the parties to bear their own costs.
( Z.A. HAQ )
JUDGE
..........
puranik / CRIWP1337.16
