AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Learned SPP takes notice for the respondent.
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.
With the consent from both sides, heard on
the main petition.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.