AHMED MAJID KHAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner (accused) by filing this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has challenged the order dated 27th June 2007 passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 19th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai by which an application for seeking discharge has been rejected. The said order of the learned Magistrate has been confirmed by the Sessions Court by order dated 13th February 2008 in revision application preferred by the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner is being prosecuted for offences under section 406, 409, 420 read with section 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. The first informant is one Ziyauddin Shaikh, a depositor of the Friends Co-operative Bank Limited. The petitioner was one of the directors of the said bank. The allegation is that directors of the said bank had obtained loans for themselves. The allegation is that loans were sanctioned by the directors to others in large amounts without abiding by the rules and regulations issued by the Reserve Bank of India. The allegation is that due care and caution was not taken by the directors for securing the interests of the investors of the said bank. Allegations are of defrauding the Bank.

(3.) The case of the petitioner is that he has no concern with the offence. The case of the petitioner is that infact he has repeatedly written letters to the chairman of the said bank from time to time pointing out various irregularities in the functioning of the bank. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has invited my attention to certain statements of witnesses forming part of the chargesheet. He invited my attention to the allegations made against the petitioner in the remand application submitted before the learned Magistrate. He pointed out that the statements of the witnesses recorded during the investigation show that there is absolutely no case to proceed against the petitioner. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the allegations against the petitioner relate to loan account Nos.9017, 2160, 9360 and 9451. He submitted that the material produced alongwith chargesheet discloses that atleast in case of three out of four accounts, the loan amount has been duly repaid and in case of one account bearing No.9360 recovery proceedings under the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 are pending. He pointed out that in so far as the said four loan accounts are concerned, there is no material to show any fabrication of documents or that the loan was released to fictitious person. He submitted that in case of these four accounts, there is no material to show that false accounts were maintained. He submitted that in any case the petitioner was not responsible for maintenance of the accounts in as much as he was only a director of the bank. He placed reliance on a decision of Rajasthan High Court in case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Kesarsingh (1969 Criminal Law Journal 1595). He, therefore, submitted that the cause for discharge was certainly made out and the courts below have committed an error by not passing the order of discharge.