IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY CRIMINAL PETITION NO.10032/2017 BETWEEN:
PIDDAPPA S/O SANNAPPA, OCC: FINANCE MANAGER, KSTDC R/O NO.18, 1ST CROSS, BEHIND SAMBRAM HOTEL MILLERS ROAD, BANGALORE-560053.
(BY SMT.RASHMI JADHAV, ADV.) ... PETITIONER AND STATE OF KARNATAKA BY YESHWANTHPURA POLICE STATION BANGALORE REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001.
...RESPONDENT (BY SRI.CHETAN DESAI, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CRIME NO.420/2017 OF YESHWANTHAPURA POLICE STATION, BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 409 AND 420 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Learned SPP takes notice for the respondent.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not press I.A.No.1/2017 and the main petition itself may be disposed of. Accordingly, I.A.No.1/2017 is dismissed as not pressed.
3. With the consent from both sides, heard on the main petition.
4. The summary of the case of prosecution is that an authorized representative of KSTDC lodged a complaint before the complainant Police against the present petitioner, who was said to be the Manager of KSTDC, Yeshwanthapura Branch, Bengaluru, alleging that the petitioner/accused has misappropriated a total sum of Rs.12,99,360/-. According to the complainant, as the Manager of KSTDC Branch, the petitioner owed a duty to collect the amount from the Travel Agents and to remit the amount to the concerned account of the KSTDC. However, for a period from 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2017, though an amount of Rs.12,99,360/- was shown to have been received, but the same was not credited to the respective accounts. The said alleged misappropriation came to light only when the audit of the accounts was taken up by the concerned Auditors. It is further alleged in the complaint, the said amount was siphoned off in favour of Sri Manjunatha Travels and Sri Rama Travels Agent, Bengaluru, in a sum of Rs.7,19,360/- and Rs.5,71,000/- respectively. Accordingly, the said complaint was registered in the respondent/complainant Police Station in Crime No.420/2017 for the offence punishable under Sections 409 and 420 of Indian Penal Code.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner in his arguments submits that the petitioner being only Manager is nowhere responsible for the collection of the amounts and remittance of said amount to the concerned accounts. It is the duty of the other staff to collect the amount from the customers and to remit to the concerned account. However, suitable action has been taken against one such Clerk. Thus the present petitioner was not directly concerned with the alleged misappropriation, but merely because he was shown to be a Manager he is falsely implicated in the case. He further submits that the alleged offence is not heinous one and that the apprehension of the petitioner is not required for investigation.
6. Learned SPP in his arguments vehemently submits that being the Manager, the petitioner by himself is responsible for the overall transactions of KSTDC Branch of which he is managing as Manager. No financial transaction could complete without the signature of the concerned Manager. As such the misappropriation could not have taken place without the knowledge or involvement of the petitioner. With this, he submitted that the alleged offence being the misappropriation of a huge amount, the petitioner should not be granted with the relief as prayed.
7. The materials placed at this stage prima facie show that the alleged offence against the petitioner is misappropriation of the sum of Rs.12,19,360/-. The copy of the complaint produced along with the petition prima facie does not give the details as to responsibility of the Manager in KSTDC Branch regarding the financial transaction. Though it speaks of about two transactions of Rs.7,19,360/- and Rs.5,71,000/-, said to have been credited to two different travel agents, but the correctness of such credit to those accounts can be ascertained in a full-fledged trial. Similarly, the alleged role of the petitioner as Manager, his responsibility and his nexus with the alleged misappropriation and the responsibilities of the petitioner in his capacity as a Manager can be ascertained in the full-fledged trial.
8. Above all, it is also to be noticed that the alleged offence is neither punishable with imprisonment for life nor with death. Even according to the respondent, the apprehension of the petitioner/accused is not required for any recovery. As such, I am of the view that in the circumstances of the case, the petitioner/accused be enlarged on anticipatory bail by allowing the petition. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER:
Petition is allowed. Petitioner-Piddappa shall surrender before the jurisdictional police on or before 30.12.2017 and in such event, he shall be released on anticipatory bail in Crime No.420/2017 of Yeshwanthapura Police Station, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 409 and 420 of Indian Penal Code, on executing an personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the enlarging authority, however, subject to the following conditions:
i. Petitioner/accused shall appear before the jurisdictional Police on every alternate Monday between 9.00 a.m. and 4.00p.m. and mark his attendance till the completion of investigation and filing of charge sheet.
ii. Petitioner/accused shall intimate the concerned Court/Authority about any change in his address, if any, during the pendency of the matter.
iii. Petitioner/accused shall not involve in any criminal activities or offences.
Sd/- JUDGE Bkm.