Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. PW 3 Shrinivas Kulkarni was the Auditor for Co-Operative Societies at Mahad and there were about 31 societies under his charge.

He stated before the trial Court that he had undertaken the audit of Mahad Co-Operative Bank Poladpur Branch in first week of September, 1986 and completed in the first week of October, 1986. He did not find the loan documents in respect of six borrowers whose names have been set out herein above. He had, therefore, asked accused no.1 to produce those loan documents and he was assured by accused no.1 to do so but after search. Accused no.1 did not produce the documents and PW 3 therefore, submitted his report to his superior officers. It has come in the examination of this witness that the Bank loan proposals used to be sanctioned by the Head Office of the Bank at Mahad and all loan amounts were disbursed by the Branch Manager concerned after obtaining/execution of the necessary documents. The letters of sanction and the letters of terms and conditions of the loan, are required to be in each proposal and other documents would be Promissory Note, Hypothecation and Mortgage Deed. Except the two R.C. Books in respect of two borrowers, no other documents were found in respect of 8 cr-apeal-407-451-91 the said six cases. When he started audit work, accused no.1 was working as an agent and he was transferred after 2nd week of September, 1986 to Murud Branch. After the transfer of accused no.1, PW 8 Satish Jangam took over charge as an agent of the Bank. As per PW 4 Vithal Salvi, he was working as P.S.I. at Poladpur Police Station at the relevant time. PW 2 Abhay approached the said Police Station at about 4 a.m. on 10.10.1986 and informed about the fire in the bank. His statement was recorded at Exh. 31 as accidental fire. As per him, when he came to the spot, he saw the damage to the records, registers, furniture, electrical fittings, ceiling etc. and it was estimated at Rs.75,000/-. During the course of his enquiry, he came to know that accused no.1 could not produce the documents in respect of some loans sanctioned as they were required by the Auditor and therefore, accused no.1 with the help of accused nos.2 to 6 set on fire the record of the bank. He had also enquired from accused nos. 1 and 6 and then lodged his complaint Exh.

PW 7 Charudatta Mahadik was another employee of the bank and resided in the neighbourhood. He stated before the trial Court that he was in the service for about last ten years and on 6.10.1986 while he was in his house, accused no. 2 visited him at about 9 a.m. and enquired about the residence of accused no.3. He gave him the address of accused no.3 and accordingly accused no.2 went to the house of accused no.3 at Mahad and met him, as accused no.3 was in his house at the relevant time. In his cross-examination, he stated that he had informed the bank at Mahad that accused no.2 had come to his house so as to make enquiry about the address of accused no.3. But he could not state the name of the staff member to whom this information was given. He also reiterated that he had informed the staff members about the visit of 10 cr-apeal-407-451-91 accused no.2 but admittedly, he did not ask accused no.2 as to why he wanted the address of accused no.3. He denied the suggestion that he was making a false statement regarding the visit of accused no.2 so as to seek address of accused no.3. PW 8 Satish Jangam stated before the Court that on 9.10.1986 he was on duty as a Manager of the bank and accused no.3 had closed the bank and latched the doors and handed over the keys to him (PW 8), along with accused no.3 he left the bank and went to Mahad by S.T. bus. Accused no.3 was assigned the work of cleaning the bank, filing the documents, opening and closing the bank before and after the working hours. He also pointed out that the loan documents like vouchers, bonds etc. would be kept in the steel cup-board, whereas, ledgers were kept on the counter. The vouchers and bond files would be kept in steel cupboard under lock and key. On 10.10.1986, the Chief Manager of the Bank Shri. Oak visited his house between 5.00 a.m. to 5.30 a.m. and he informed him about the incident of fire in the branch at Poladpur and asked him to accompany to the branch. Both of them reached the Bank and noticed the counter and cash cabin were burnt along with ledgers and all the walls of the room were blackish, the glasses of agent ' s and cashier ' s cabin were broken. He stated in his cross-

9. PW 5 Dilip Savant (original accused no.4) was the employee of 20 cr-apeal-407-451-91 accused no.2 (cleaner of the truck). He stated before the trial Court that accused no.6 was the driver of the said truck bearing registration No. MTT-6294. He was residing in the room provided by accused no.2 behind his bungalow at Gandhar Pale. The distance between Gandhar Pale and Mahad city was about 10 minutes by walk and he used to reside in the said room along with accused no.5. 5 to 6 days prior to 9.10.1986, accused no.2 instructed both of them at about 9 p.m. and in the presence of accused no.1 that the rear side door of the Mahad Co-Operative Bank Poladpur Branch would be kept open in the night and they would go and enter the bank and set on fire the documents lying on the counter by pouring kerosene. Accused no.1 also told him and accused no.5 that they would be duly compensated and an amount of Rs.5000/- will be given to each of them. Accused no.2 re-assured him that in case accused no.1 failed to pay the said amount, he would be personally liable and the money would be paid to them if they succeeded in burning the documents. Accused nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 went to Sali Wada Naka from the bangalow of accused no.5. Accused nos.1 and 2 then hired auto rickshaw for all others. Accused nos.4 and 5 boarded auto rickshaw with a plastic can containing kerosene and the can was provided by accused no.1 duly filled in by kerosene. They were told to go to the place behind S.T. stand Poladpur and wait there. Accordingly, he along with accused no.5 reached behind the S.T. stand at about 10.45 p.m. and accused nos.

He did not know whether the owner of the bank building was a Gujarati person by name Butala. He further stated that there were several persons by surname Butala in Mahad town. He denied the suggestion that he was facing criminal cases in two theft charges in the Court at Mahad. He also denied that he was convicted in prohibition cases for consuming liquor in Mahad Court. He also denied that he had stolen the cotton belonging to Mr. Joshi and that the case was pending against him in Mahad Court. He denied the suggestion that he burnt documents of the bank at the instance of some other person and not at the instance of accused nos.1 and 2.