In a case of embezzlement of funds belonging to the Punjab State Electricity Board, anticipatory bail may be granted to the accused if the investigation of the case hinges on documentary evidence which is in the possession of the Board and the amount allegedly embezzled has been deposited in the coffers of the Board by the consumers themselves.

M.L. Singhal, J. - This order will dispose of Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1868-M of 1999 whereby Mulkh Raj Arora has claimed anticipatory bail in case F.I.R. No. 55, dated July 22, 1998 registered at Police Station D Division, Amritsar under Sections 409/120B Indian Penal Code and Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2424-M of 1999 whereby Prem Nath is seeking anticipatory bail in the same F.I.R.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that with effect from April 1, 1995 to May 21, 1998, there took place embezzlement of money belonging to the Punjab State Electricity Board in City Centre Division, Amritsar and the commission of other grave irregularities. Senior Executive Engineer, City Centre Division, Amritsar of the Punjab State Electricity Board wrote memo No. 2299 dated June 9, 1998 to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Amritsar whereby he requested for the registration of First Information Report against the delinquent employees of the Board for committing embezzlement. On that letter, a case was ordered to be registered under Sections 409/120-B of the Indian Penal Code against Asha Kesar Clerk and Palwinder Kaur, Clerk by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Amritsar.

3. It was submitted by the learned Counsel for Mulkh Raj Arora that cheques of the amount of Rs. 71,859/- and Rs. 5,091/- were received by co-accused Palwinder Kaur, Asha Kesar which were handed over to Mulkh Raj Arora who was the Head Cashier. They were not presented to the bank. In the article of charges drawn up against Palwinder Kaur, Asha Kesar, it is alleged that pay-in-slip dated October 7, 1996 was prepared by him and entry on the account was also made but the pay-in-slip does not bear the Bank stamp. It was submitted that the case of the prosecution is that the probability of Mulkh Raj Arora having embezzled the aforesaid amount in connivance with the other accused is there. It was further submitted that Mulkh Raj Arora was given "no due certificate" by the higher officials of the concerned department where he had served for more than 30 years and retired on January 31, 1997 i.e. much before the registration of this case. It was further submitted that all the pay-in-slips and cheques collected by Mulkh Raj Arora in his capacity as Head Cashier were handed over by him to the R.A. who was holding rank superior to his rank. The R.A. was responsible for the presentation of the cheques to the Bank for clearance. The L.D.C./R.A. was responsible for depositing the cheques in the Banks and the copy of the cash book dated October 4, 1996 which was prepared by the petitioner and handed over to Rajinder Kapoor, R.A. mentions the amount of Rs. 75,462/- which was received by Mulkh Raj Arora from Palwinder Kaur, Cashier. This amount included the amount of Rs. 71,859/- i.e. the amount which he is said to have embezzled. It was further submitted that the consumer himself deposited the amount of Rs. 71,859/- alongwith the penalty, i.e. total amount of Rs. 85,000/- in the coffers of the Board. It was further submitted that there is no loss to the Board as the amount stood already deposited and further Asha Kesar and Palwinder Kaur co-accused have already been admitted to anticipatory bail by this Court.

4. The learned Deputy Advocate General, for the State of Punjab, on the other hand, submitted that before lodging First Information, audit enquiry was made by Shri S.K. Duggal, Additional Superintending Engineer, Technical Audit, Punjab State Electricity Board, Amritsar who found Mulkh Raj Arora and Prem Nath etc. guilty of embezzlement. Allegation against Mulkh Raj Arora is that he had embezzled Rs. 1,75,816/- by showing bogus cheque number on RO-4 which actually were never presented to the Bank. It was also submitted that he did not reconcile the cheques deposited in the Bank with his cash book. The Board was put to a financial loss to the tune of Rs. 21,45,963/- by not making debit entry to the consumers account where the cheques were dishonoured.

5. It was