Suresh S/O. Rupsing Padvi v. The State Of Maharashtra

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2703 OF 2017 Suresh s/o Rupsing Padvi ... Applicant

VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent .....

Mr. C.R.Deshpande, advocate for the applicant Mr. S.B.Joshi, A.P.P for respondent .....

CORAM : K.L.WADANE, J.

DATED : 24th JULY, 2017 O R D E R :

Heard Mr. C.R.Deshpande, learned counsel appearing for the applicant and Mr. S.B.Joshi, learned A.P.P. for the respondent.

2.

It is the case of prosecution that the applicant, who was working in Agriculture Department in Zilla Parishad, Nandurbar as Officer and was incharge of Agriculture Development Office, by misusing his post has created bogus list of beneficiaries of well and other equipments. He also prepared false documents and stamps and thereby cheated the Government by

misappropriating an amount of Rs.1,77,50,000/-. 3.

The informant Assistant Project Officer, Integrated Tribal Development Project, Taloda lodged report to the police station Taloda on 13.6.2016. On the basis of report, offence came to be registered against the applicant.

4.

On perusal of the charge sheet, it appears that the Government of Maharashtra has sanctioned Rs.1,77,50,000/- for construction of well in the year 2010-11 and has accordingly transferred the said amount by cheque drawn in favour of Agricultural Development Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nandurbar. The applicant submitted the list of beneficiaries and got sanctioned the amount, however, it was found that no well under the said scheme has been constructed and beneficiaries were not given the benefit of the same. The list submitted by the applicant was found to be bogus and no work of construction was carried out.

5.

Statements of beneficiaries were recorded, which show that no benefit was given to them under the said scheme.

6.

Learned A.P.P. further points out the statement given by the Bank of Baroda, which shows that the amount was withdrawn in cash instead of issuing it by cheque.

7.

From the record, prima facie, it appears that the present applicant has misappropriated huge amount in Crores.

8.

Learned A.P.P. further points out that this document is also forged and fictitious documents.

9.

Considering the over all circumstances of the case and the amount involved, I am of the opinion that the applicant is not entitled for bail.

10.

Hence, Criminal Application is rejected.

(K.L.WADANE, J.) dbm