LAWS(KAR)-2020-8-253

MURGEPPA DHARMAGOUDA PATIL Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Decided On August 19, 2020
Murgeppa Dharmagouda Patil Appellant
V/S
STATE OF KARNATAKA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-accused No.2, who is aged about 78 years is before this Court seeking to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in Athani P.S. Crime No.205 of 2020 registered for the offence punishable under Section 408 of IPC.

(2.) The Co-operative Development Officer filed a complaint on 18.06.2020 alleging that the petitioner was the President of Veer Rani Chennamma Urban Co- operative Credit Society, Niyamit, Athani for the year 2008-09 till 2009-10 and one Mr.Siddagouda Bhimagouda Gumataj was the Secretary of the said Society. During the said years, both of them are stated to have misappropriated monies of the Society, which came to light in the year 2016 after an audit was conducted on account of the elected representatives not taking office in the year 2015. On the basis of the said audit report, an enquiry was conducted under Section 64 of the Karnataka Co- operative Societies Act , 1959 (for short, 'the Act'), wherein attachment order as regards immovable properties was passed not only against the petitioner but against the entire Board of Directors of the said Society and the Secretary, Chief Executive Officer of the Society. It is alleged that the petitioner and the Secretary have misappropriated an amount of Rs.67,00,000/- from and out of the funds belonging to the Society and it is in this regard the complaint came to be filed on 18.06.2020.

(3.) Shri Sanjay S Katageri, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in fact in the year 2011 itself, the Secretary has given an undertaking affidavit stating that he was responsible for all the financial affairs of the Society and in the event of there being any misappropriation or financial irregularity, he would be solely responsible for the same and none of the other Directors are responsible of such misappropriation. The said Secretary-accused No.1 has also undertaken to make good the loss caused to the Society and as such Shri Sanjay S Katageri submits that the petitioner cannot be held liable when there is such statement on record. He further submits that the petitioner by himself is not incharge of the affairs of the Society and in terms of Section 28-A of the Act, it is entire Board of Directors, who are responsible. On the basis of the said submission he states that the enquiry earlier conducted was insofar as 10 Directors/Office Bearers of the Society and that the complaint has only been filed against the petitioner and the Secretary as if to state that it is only the petitioner and the Secretary, who are responsible for the alleged misappropriation. If at all there is any misappropriation of amounts, the complaint ought to have been filed against all the Office Bearers of the Society and not only against the petitioner and the Secretary.