GUMA TECH MARINE SERVICES Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable with consent of the parties and heard.

(2.) The brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition are as under:-

(3.) It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner firm is having bank accounts only with three banks namely ING Vysya Bank, Bhavnagar, Bank of India, Bhavnagar and Axix Bank, Malad Branch, Mumbai. Moreover the petitioner firm is catering to the needs of the shipping industry since a long time and almost 90% of the business of the petitioner firm is in the nature of export. Thereafter, Respondent No. 4 after taking the said cheque of Rs. 50,000/- neither informed any of the partners of the petitioner firm nor any of the employees of the petitioner firm about the said cheque. It was only when M/s. C.S. Diesel Engineering Pvt. Ltd., demanded the C Form from the petitioner firm, that the accountant of the petitioner firm namely Mr. Deepak Chavda, demanded the invoice of the said transaction in order to verify the same from the records. After detailed examination and reconfirmation from M/s. C.S. Diesel Engineering Pvt. Ltd., it was revealed that Respondent No. 4 had taken away the said cheque bearing no. 118751 dated 11.03.2010 of an amount of Rs. 50,000/- favouring M/s. Guma Tech Marine Services, the petitioner herein, on the pretext that the same would be deposited in the account of the petitioner firm. Thereafter, the petitioner firm acting through its partner Mr. G.V. Seetharam, tried to find out the details pertaining to the encashment of the said cheque bearing no. 118751 dated 11.03.2010 issued by M/s. C.S. Diesel Engineering Pvt. Ltd. It was revealed that the said cheque had been encashed in the State Bank of India, Hughes Road Branch, Mumbai- 400007. Thereafter, the petitioner firm, acting through its partner Mr. G.V. Seetharam, tries to find out as to how the said account payee cheque favouring the said firm could have been encashed at the State Bank of India, Hughes Road Branch, Mumbai 400007 when the petitioner firm had no account in the said bank. Upon further enquiries it was revealed that the Respondent No. 2 was working as a Deputy Manager in the said State Bank of India, Hughes Road Branch, Mumai- 400007 and an account in the name of the petitioner firm had been opened in the said branch of the State Bank of India and the said account had been opened without the consent, authority and instructions from the petitioner firm. The petitioner firm, acting through its partner Mr. G.V. Seetharam, tried to take out more information from the said branch of the State Bank of India, however, the Respondent No. 2, being the Deputy Manager at the said branch, deliberately withheld vital information which could have thrown light on the guilt of the Respondent No. 2, 3 and as also Late Satyendrababu Saxena. Left with no other alternative, the petitioner firm, acting through its partner Mr. G.V. Seetharam, filed a complaint in the Gamdevi Police Station, Mumbai on 12.02.2011.