SACHIN SHANKARLAL BHATTAD Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Before passing order, I have to mention some facts happened in the Court. Yesterday there was date of mentioning of the matter. There were about 20 to 30 advocates standing in row for mentioning the matters. Learned Advocate Mr. V.R. Dhorde mentioned matter before this Court. He requested to keep the matter in noon session as there was extreme urgency in the matter. As there were other Advocates standing in the row, this Court asked him to mention the matter on 31.12.2021. After completing the mentioning of all Advocates, again Mr. Dhorde appeared before this Court and requested to keep the matter today. He submitted that Mr.R. N. Dhorde, Senior Advocate is not available on 31.12.2021 and considering the extreme urgency in the matter, the matter is directed to be listed on today. Learned A.P.P. Mr. Sangle was present in the Court. This Court inquired with Mr. Sangle about taking the matter today. Mr. Sangle consented for it and asked Mr. Dhorde to give the papers. Accordingly, this Court kept the matter today for hearing.

(2.) Today, in morning session, learned Advocate Mr. C.V. Thomre appeared before this Court and asked this Court how this matter is kept on today's board when it was kept on 31.12.2021. Mr. Thombre further submitted that he is assisting the learned A.P.P. on behalf of complainant and his side should be heard. He was pointing out that he had informed Mr. V.R. Dhorde that he will appear in the matter but Mr. Dhorde did not inform him about today's date. Hence, his grievance was that Mr. Dhorde had not informed him about today's date. After hearing him, this Court asked learned A.P.P. Mr. S.N. Morampalle whether Advocate Mr. C.V. Thombre is assisting him. He informed the Court that on record the appearance of Mr. Thombre is not there and he cannot address the Court unless his appearance is on record. This Court informed Mr. Thombre that if he wants to say something, he can put his side through learned A.P.P. Thereafter this Court heard arguments of both sides at length. Learned A.P.P. sought some time to go through the papers. He sat with learned Advocate Mr.Thombre. Mr. Thombre gave instructions to learned A.P.P. regarding the matter, again after hearing both the parties this Court has taken up this matter for passing order.

(3.) It is the contention of Mr. R.N. Dhorde, learned Senior Counsel for the applicants that applicant No. 1 is Chief Officer while applicant No. 2 is Chairman of Samta Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd., Kopargaon (for short "Credit Society"). Offence is registered against the applicants on the basis of order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Rahata under Sec. 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The allegations against applicants are baseless. The entire transaction is happened between complainant Mr. Thombre and accused No.1 Prashant Dakale. The Credit Society granted loan on three occasions to the complainant Mr. Thombre. Certificates under Sec. 101 of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short, "MCS Act") were issued on three occasions against the complainant. On one occasion complainant challenged the said order issued under Sec. 101 of MCS Act before this Court by way of writ petition. The said writ petition was dismissed. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the complainant has obtained loan through his wife from the Credit Society by mortgaging his other property situated at Devlali, Nashik. From entire documents the role of the applicants that they cheated the complainant Mr. Thombre, does not reveal. As the Credit Society has initiated action against property of the the complainant at Nashik which is mortgaged with the Credit Society, to avoid that liability the complainant has implicated the applicants in this case. He has pointed out documents alongwith application for loan made by the complainant Mr. Thombre, withdrawal slips and transaction done by complainant Mr. Thombre.