H RAMPRASAD Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Petition is filed by A16 in C.C. No. 9 of 2004 on the file of Metropolitan Sessions Judge cum Special Court, Hyderabad to quash the proceedings therein so far as he is concerned.

(2.) The facts of the case in brief giving rise to filing of this application by A-16 in C.C. No. 9 of 2004 on the file of Metropolitan Sessions Judge cum Special Court, Hyderabad are as follows: Manikanta Co-operative Bank Limited (hereinafter referred to as Bank) was registered under Section 7 of A.P. Cooperative Societies Act. Reserve Bank of India granted licence to the Bank subject to the condition that the area of operation shall be confined only to the area as indicated in the byelaws which are duly approved by the Deputy Registrar, City Circle, Hyderabad. The Bank headed by Adhoc Committee conducted business prior to the elected body after issuance of licence by Reserve Bank of India for the period from 28-3-1998 to 30-12-1998. The petjtioner/A-16 is one of the members of the Adhoc Committee. Election was conducted on 5-1 -99 and office bearers of the Bank were unanimously elected for the period of five years from the date of election i.e. 5-1-99 to 4-1-2004. M. Raji Reddy was appointed as an Enquiry Officer to probe into the irregularities committed by the Bank which resulted in failure of payment of deposits to the public. The said Enquiry Officer submitted an enquiry report stating that the Board of Directors and CEO of the bank have indulged in mismanagement of the funds of the Bank. A report came to be presented before the Station House Officer, CCS, Hyderabad. The SHO of CCS, Hyderabad received the report on 16-5-2003 and registered a case in Crime No. 201 of 2003 u/s 420 and 406 I.P.C. The investigation was taken over by WCO Team I. During the course of investigation certain accused came to be arrested and remanded to judicial custody. After completing investigation against the arrested accused, a final report came to be presented u/s 173 Cr.P.C. before the Metropolitan Sessions Judge cum Special Court, Hyderabad. The learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge cum Special Court, Hyderabad took the charge sheet on file as C.C. 9 of the 2004 and issued summons to A-2, A-5, A-6 and A-17 and NBWs against A-4, A-7, A-9 to A-16, A-18 and A-19. Hence, this Criminal Petition by A-16 to quash the proceedings in C.C. 9 of 2004 so far as he is concerned.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/A-16 submits that even if the entire allegations in the charge sheet are taken at their face value, no offence can be made out against the petitioner/A-16 and therefore proceedings against the petitioner/A-16 in C.C. 9/2004 are liable to be quashed. He further submits that the petitioner/A-16 ceased to have any say in the management of the affairs of the Bank consequent on elected body assuming charge of affairs of the Bank. It is his further submission that the petitioner/A-16 never played active role even during his tenure as a member in the Adhoc Committee. In support of his submissions he placed reliance on the decision of Supreme Court in Delhi Municipality v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi, the decision of Delhi High Court in R.P. Sablok v. Kausalya Devi and the decision of Calcutta High Court in Pakrashi v. Emperor.