1 aba302.20

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

NAGPUR BENCH, AT NAGPUR.

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ABA) NO. 302 OF 2020

( Suresh Tukaram Telang ..vs.. State of Maharashtra, through PSO, PS Beltarodi, Nagpur )

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,

Court'

s or Judge'

s orders

appearances, Court'

s orders of directions

and Registrar'

s orders

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mr. U.P. Dable, Counsel for the applicant,

Mr. M.K. Pathan, Addl.P.P. for the non-applicant/State.

CORAM : ROHIT B. DEO, J.

DATED : 05-01-2021

Before I advert to the merits of the application, in

fairness to the learned Counsel Mr. Uday Dable, I must

record that he did make a request for unconditional

withdrawal of the application.

2.

I have heard this application, at some length, on

previous occasions. Reference may be made to the order

dated 04-8-2020 which records thus :

“3.

I have heard learned counsel Shri Uday Dable

at some length. In response to certain queries,

learned counsel Shri Uday Dable is seeking time to

file on record documents. It would be appropriate if

the backdrop in which the queries were put, is

recorded.

4.

The gist of the prosecution case is that the

applicant is a former office bearer (President) of trust

Bhartiya Gruh Samasya Niwaran Sanstha. The

applicant without any authority, and without

obtaining the permission of the competent authority,

sold society’s land admeasuring 4 acres for

consideration of Rs. 2.82 crores. The case of the

2 aba302.20

prosecution, and which case is prima facie considered

by the learned Sessions Judge who rejected the pre-

arrest bail, is that the applicant ceased to be the

President of the society w.e.f. 27.5.2020 in view of the

acceptance of the Change Report by the competent

authority and then onwards the informant is the

President. However, the applicant executed the

saledeed/s on 7.3.2013 in favour of Gayatri Hetal

Construction Company Private Limited. Notably,

perusal of the saledeed dated 7.3.2013 would reveal

that the applicant has posed to be the president of the

society. The further case of the prosecution that the

applicant opened new bank account, deposited the

amount of consideration of saledeed in the said

account and then withdrew and misappropriated the

amount.

5.

In the teeth of the glaring facts emerging from

record, a specific query was put to the learned

counsel Shri Uday Dable as to whether there is any

dispute that the applicant ceased to be the President

w.e.f. 27.5.2012. Initially, the learned counsel stated

that there is no dispute. However, in response to the

further query as to how the applicant could have

executed the saledeed on 7.3.2013, the learned

counsel stated that the Change Report was stayed by

the superior authority. However, at a later stage Shri

Uday Dable states that since he has no clear

instructions on the status of the Change Report, it

may be assumed that the applicant was not the

President when he executed the saledeed dated

7.3.2013.

6.

The learned counsel was then asked as to how

the applicant could have opened a new account and

then withdrawn the consideration amount and as to

whether the applicant has handed over the said

amount to the society. In response to the said query,

Shri Uday Dable, the learned counsel states that he

would place on record bank statements which would

clarify the position. To keep the record straight, Shri

Uday Dable also pointed out a Resolution at page 90

3 aba302.20

which is signed by the applicant which according to

the learned counsel authorizes the applicant to

execute the saledeed. Be it noted that the purport