SANJAY RAMESH MEHTA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Ms. Vasanti Joshi, learned Counsel for the applicant and Mr. Nikam, learned APP for the State.

(2.) THIS is an application for anticipatory bail filed by the applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 379, 420, 467 and 468 of Indian Penal Code in Crime No 214/2006 registered with Cuffe Parade Police Station. The applicant claims to be the businessman dealing in electronic goods at Bombay. According to him one Ajay Kashyap approached the applicant in October, 1998 and showed interest in purchase of certain electronic goods. He handed over a demand draft of Rs. 60,070/- to the applicant and purchased goods for certain amounts. After adjustment of the price of the goods he received amount of Rs. 30,000/- from the present applicant and passed receipt. Again in the same month, said Kashyap approached the applicant for purchase of certain electronic goods contending that he required huge quantity of goods for opening a new shop and he handed over a demand draft of Rs. Ten Lacs to the applicant. The said demand draft remained with the applicant for long time, as Ajay Kashyap told the applicant that it will take some tome to make the shop ready. As said Kashyap did not turn upto November, 1999, the applicant encashed said demand draft and put the said amount in fixed deposit for a period of six months. According to him, from April 1999 to May 1999 said Kashyap had purchased various goods from him as per invoices but still huge amount was lying with the applicant. He explained all these facts in his income tax returns. In February, 2000, Bank of Baroda at Surat found that the demand draft of Rs.10/- was fraudulently altered to Rs. 10 lacs. Similarly earlier demand draft of Rs. 607/- was altered to Rs. 60,070/- and thus fraud was played. The Bank had approached the police but the Bank did not pursue the matter as it wanted to take recourse to DRT. In view of the defence taken by the present applicant, the application filed by the Bank before the DRT came to be rejected. Even its appeal was dismissed by DRAT. According to the applicant, he issued a defamation notice to the Bank and thereafter, the bank filed a complaint before the concerned Magistrate at Mumbai. The learned Magistrate directed the police to investigate the offence under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and the above referred crime has been registered. The applicant apprehends arrest in the said offence and therefore, he seeks anticipatory bail.