SANDHYA DIGAMBAR JOSHI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant is apprehending her arrest in connection with Crime No.11/2018 dtd. 1/2/2018 registered with Sonai Police Station, Tq. Newasa, Dist. Ahmednagar, for the offence punishable under Sec. 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

(2.) Heard learned Advocate Mr. Y.S. Thorat for the applicant and learned APP Mr. N.T. Bhagat for the respondent. In order to cut short, it can be said that they have argued in support of their respective contentions.

(3.) Interesting part to be noted is that the First Information Report, in which the present applicant is apprehending her arrest has been lodged by one Shirish Devidas Kulkarni, who appears to be the Special Auditor, Class-II, Co-operative Societies, Ahmednagar in respect of alleged misappropriation for the period between 1/4/2016 to 31/3/2017 committed at Shri. Venkatesh Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Sonai, Tq. Newasa, Dist. Ahmednagar. This offence has been lodged on 23/10/2018. In fact, prior to that the one Suvidya Somani, the Auditor, had lodged offence vide Crime No.31/2018 on 1/2/2018 with the same Police Station against three persons, who were the office bearers of said Patsanstha. It was under Sec. 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. She had also stated that when she had carried out the audit for the aforesaid period of the said Co-operative Society, she could find irregularities, illegalities etc. and thereby causing misappropriation of the public fund. She has also stated that she is on the panel of Divisional Sub-Registrar, Pune. She has stated that there was misappropriation of amount of Rs.1,93,07,406.00. Now, this informant Shirish Devidas Kulkarni admits that said Suvidya Somani had carried out the audit for the year 2016-17 and then had lodged the First Information Report against three employees. Then, further he says that it was necessary for the Directors to fix the responsibility and have a re-audit for the said period and also to check the issues raised by those persons against whom the report was lodged. For that purpose it appears that again the inquiry was held and now as against the Chairman, Vice Chairman, Directors and present applicant the offence was registered. Interestingly he says that for the amount arrived at by the informant he is holding the informant also responsible. While granting interim relief to the applicant on 6/1/2022, this Court had put a query that whether two First Information Reports can be filed in respect of the same offence or for the same contentions. The answer would be "˜No "™ and from the police papers it can also be seen that some forensic audit is stated to have been conducted and then another First Information Report has been lodged.