DAMANDAS SHIVANDAS DHARMANI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Khambete for the Petitioner. Nobody is present for Respondent No.2. Also heard Mr. Nalawade the learned APP for the State. The petitioner who was an auditor of the Government of Maharashtra and was working in Co-operative department, has filed this petition against the issuance of process under different sections of the I. P. C. , by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Junnar, District Pune, on the complaint of Respondent No.2 -Narayangaon Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Society Ltd. It is alleged in the complaint that while auditing the accounts of the said complainant -Society, the present petitioner alongwith Accused No.1 who was the secretary of the society, mis-appropriated the amount of the Society, tampered with the documents and records, changed the account books and thereafter caused huge loss in terms of money to the complainant -Society. The complainant -Society therefore filed the complaint before the J. M. F. C. Junnar U/s. 403, 406, 408, 409, 417, 418, 427 etc. of the I. P. C. and the process was ordered to be issued under all those sections.

(2.) ACCORDING to Mr. Khambete, the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was in the employment of Govt. of Maharashtra during the relevant time and he was permanent employee and was not removable from the service without due sanction from the Govt. of Maharashtra. As such, according to Mr. Khambete, the complainant -Society could not have initiated proceedings against the Petitioner without obtaining previous sanction in writing from the Government of Maharashtra, and as such, the complaint against the present petitioner was liable to be dismissed, and the issue of process was liable to be quashed.

(3.) FROM both these documents, Mr. Khambete, the learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that, firstly, the petitioner was the permanent employee of the Govt. of Maharashtra and was not removable from the service without due sanction of the Government and secondly, no permission was granted to prosecute the petitioner Dharmani, but to the contrary, the permission was refused by the Government.