T.R .Parameshaiah. Son of Late RachappA. Vs. the State of KarnatakA. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/925473
SubjectCriminal
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided OnApr-20-2012
Case NumberCRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1831 OF 2012
JudgeK.N.KESHAVANARAYANA, J.
ActsIndian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 409; Code of Criminal Procedure (CPC) - Section 438
AppellantT.R .Parameshaiah. Son of Late RachappA.
RespondentThe State of KarnatakA.
Advocates:Shri A.V. Gangadharappa, Adv.
Excerpt:
[k.n.keshavanarayana, j.] indian penal code - section 409 - criminal breach of trust by public servant, or by banker, merchant or agent -- this criminal petition is filed under section 438 of the code of criminal procedure praying that this hon'ble court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in crime no. 18/ 2012 of gundlupete police station, chamarajanagar district, for the offence punishable under section 409 of the indian penal code.1. the petitioner was working as a manager of heerikati primary agriculture credit co-operative society till 04.09.2007, on which day he retired from the services on attaining the age of superannuation. the accounts of this primary agriculture credit co-operative society for the financial years 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008¬09, 2009-10, were stated to have been audited by the auditors attached to co-operative department, in the year 2011. the report submitted by the auditor said to have revealed that during the year 2006-07 while this petitioner was discharging duty as the manager has misappropriated funds to an extent of rs5,15,166.00 and during the financial year 2007-08 a sum of rs. 1,78,515= 15. thus, in all rs.6.93.681.15 was found misappropriated by this petitioner on receipt of the audited report, the chief executive officer of the society filed complaint on 20.01.2012 before the jurisdictional police alleging misappropriation of the aforesaid amount by this petitioner and for initiating action against mm for the said offence. based on the said complaint the respondent - police registered the case in crime no, 18/2012 for the offence punishable under section 409 of the indian penal code against this petitioner and took up investigation.2. on coming to know of the registration of the case, this petitioner approached the court of sessions in chamarajanagar, under section 438 of the code of criminal procedure seeking relief of anticipators' bail. however, the said petition came to be rejected.therefore, the petitioner has presented this petition seeking relief of anticipatory bail.3. the petition is opposed by the respondent - state.4. i have heard both sides. perused the records made available.5. in view of the fact that admittedly the petitioner has been arraying as accused in the case registered by the respondent - police, his apprehension that he is likely to be arrested is 'veil founded.6. as noticed supra, even according to the complaint allegations, this petitioner worked in the society as manager from march 2000 up to 04.09.2007 the complaint alleging misappropriation of funds during the year 2006-07 and 2007 08 has been filed in january 2012. audit of the accounts also stated to have been conducted ^bout four years after the retirement of petitioner from service. even as per the allegations in the complaint, some of the pages in the accounts books for the year 2006-07 were found missing and audited was stated to have been conducted after the reconstruction of the account books.7. having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the materials available on record at this stage, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is guilty of the offence alleged. therefore, the petitioner is entitled for the relief of anticipatory bail.8. hence, the petition is allowed. the lent - police are hereby directed to release the petitioner on bail, in the event of his arrest in connection with the case in crime no, 18/2012 of gundlupete police station, chamarajanagar district, on his executing a personal bond for a sum of rs.50,000/-with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the investigating officer and subject to further conditions that:i) upon such arrest and release, the petitioner for the purpose of investigation shall appear before the investigating officer whenever called upon to do so and co-operate in the investigation of the case.ii) the petitioner shall not tamper or terrorise the prosecution witnesses in any manner.
Judgment:

1. The petitioner was working as a Manager of Heerikati Primary Agriculture Credit Co-operative Society till 04.09.2007, on which day he retired from the services on attaining the age of superannuation. The accounts of this Primary Agriculture Credit Co-operative Society for the financial years 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008¬09, 2009-10, were stated to have been audited by the auditors attached to Co-operative Department, in the year 2011. The report submitted by the Auditor said to have revealed that during the year 2006-07 while this petitioner was discharging duty as the Manager has misappropriated funds to an extent of Rs5,15,166.00 and during the financial year 2007-08 a sum of Rs. 1,78,515= 15. Thus, in all Rs.6.93.681.15 was found misappropriated by this petitioner On receipt of the audited report, the Chief Executive Officer of the Society filed complaint on 20.01.2012 before the Jurisdictional Police alleging misappropriation of the aforesaid amount by this petitioner and for initiating action against mm for the said offence. Based on the said complaint the respondent - Police registered the case in Crime No, 18/2012 for the offence punishable under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code against this petitioner and took up investigation.

2. On coming to know of the registration of the case, this petitioner approached the Court of Sessions in Chamarajanagar, under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking relief of anticipators' bail. However, the said petition came to be rejected.

Therefore, the petitioner has presented this petition seeking relief of anticipatory bail.

3. The petition is opposed by the respondent - State.

4. I have heard both sides. Perused the records made available.

5. In view of the fact that admittedly the petitioner has been arraying as accused in the case registered by the respondent - Police, his apprehension that he is likely to be arrested is 'veil founded.

6. As noticed supra, even according to the complaint allegations, this petitioner worked in the Society as Manager from March 2000 up to 04.09.2007 The complaint alleging misappropriation of funds during the year 2006-07 and 2007 08 has been filed in January 2012. Audit of the accounts also stated to have been conducted ^bout four years after the retirement of petitioner from service. Even as per the allegations in the complaint, some of the pages in the accounts books for the year 2006-07 were found missing and audited was stated to have been conducted after the reconstruction of the account books.

7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the materials available on record at this stage, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is guilty of the offence alleged. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for the relief of anticipatory bail.

8. Hence, the petition is allowed. The lent - Police are hereby directed to release the petitioner on bail, in the event of his arrest in connection with the case in Crime No, 18/2012 of Gundlupete Police Station, Chamarajanagar District, on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer and subject to further conditions that:

i) Upon such arrest and release, the petitioner for the purpose of investigation shall appear before the Investigating Officer whenever called upon to do so and co-operate in the investigation of the case.

ii) The petitioner shall not tamper or terrorise the prosecution witnesses in any manner.