SURJITSINH @ SANDIPSINH AMARSINH MANGROLA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has challenged the legality and propriety of the impugned order dated 12.10.2020 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bharuch at Ankleshwar in Criminal Revision Application No.46 of 2021, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge has set aside the order of the trial Court and remanded the petitioner to the police custody for a period of 3 days.

(2.) Heard Mr.B.M.Mangukiya, learned counsel assisted by Ms.Bela Prajapati, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Mitesh Amin, Public Prosecutor assisted with Ms.Shruti Pathak, learned APP for the respondent State.

(3.) Brief facts leading to file the present petition are that the petitioner was the chairman of Shri Ganesh Sugar Udhyog Co-Operative Society, registered with the Gujarat Co- operative Societies Act, 1961. One Mr. Pushpendrasinh Indrasinh being a member of the society has lodged the FIR with Valia Police Station, under Section 406, 408, 409 and 130- B of the Indian Penal Code alleging that during the tenure as a Managing Director of the Society, the petitioner has committed an offence of criminal breach of trust and with dishonest intention, misappropriated the huge amount, in connivance with the co-accused. It is further alleged in the FIR that, the petitioner caused the financial loss to the Society to the extent of Rs.85 crore. It is alleged that, he had sold the sugar as well as other items to his own firm managed by his father and got received financial benefits. It is also alleged that, he acted against the interest of the members of the society and created a forged Will of one member Harisinh Ramsinh for the purpose of transferring of share of the society. It is also alleged that, he had opened false bank account of the members for his personal interest and also sold the sugar to the different entities at a meager price and did not take any action against the parties with whom he made business transactions for and on behalf of the Society.