PRAFUL PRABHAKARBHAI HARSHE Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner as a liquidator of Visnagar Nagarik Sahakari Bank Ltd., has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, seeking declaration that the remarks and strictures passed by the learned Judge in para-13 of order dated 8.4.2005 passed below Criminal Misc. Application No.1133/2005 in so far as it relates to petitioner are wrong, illegal, unwarranted, uncalled for and further prayed to expunge the same.

(2.) This Court has issued rule on 25.4.2005 and after hearing Mr.Rajeshwar J. Dave, learned advocate for the petitioner and learned APP, the Court passed an order staying operation of the order dated 8.4.2005 qua the observations made against the petitioner and more particularly in para-13 of the order, till the returnable date. The said interim relief was continued thereafter.

(3.) Mr.Rajeshwar Dave, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Liquidator of the Visnagar Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd., on 1.8.2002. Upon scrutiny of the records of the Bank the petitioner found that there was mismanagement and large scale irregularities were committed by the earlier management of the Bank and therefore, he has directed the Manager of the Bank to lodge a complaint against the earlier management of the Bank and accordingly, complaint bearing CR No.452/2002 was filed on 30.8.2002. He has further submitted that one of the persons against whom the Bank has lodged complaint was Mr.Mansukh V. Pethani and Mr.Rasik V. Pethani who had preferred Criminal Misc. Application No.2308/2003 and 2307/2003 respectively and both the said applications were allowed and they were enlarged on bail by the City Sessions Court, Ahmedabad, on condition that they shall pay the principal amount in 24 monthly installments. He has further submitted that as per the said order they have also handed over post dated cheques but after the initial payment the cheques issued by them were returned dishonoured. The petitioner, therefore, had informed the ACP E Division to initiate appropriate action for cancellation of their bail.