Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. As per the prosecution case, accused no.1 was working as the Branch Manager (Agent) of Mahad Co-Operative Urban Bank Poladpur Branch from 17.4.1980 to 16.9.1986 and thereafter, he came to be transfered to Murud Branch of the said Bank. On or about 5.9.1986 the audit of Poladpur Branch was undertaken by Shri. Shrinivas Kulkarni PW 3 and in the said process, it was pointed out by him about the missing documents, to accused no.1 who sought sometime to produce these documents pertaining to the loan sanctioned to Smt. Pushpalata Salgare, Gayakwad, Gani Dhamankar, Ajit Bhagwat, Vasant Jadhav and Suresh Talathi. The audit was completed in the first week of October, 1986 and the accused no.1 could not produce the missing documents of the above mentioned six loan disbursements though the loan amount was shown to have been disbursed. On or about 5.10.1986, the accused no.1 approached accused no.3 who was employed as a peon in the Bank with a request that he should leave the northern side door of the bank open in the night and with the help of accused no.2 the documents lying in the bank, would be set on fire by accused nos. 4 and 5 so that he would not be required to produce the documents and presumably he would take the 4 cr-apeal-407-451-91 plea that the missing documents were burnt during the fire, so set up.

The motive of the accused No.1 behind the crime is required to be inferred on the backdrop of the missing of certain documents from the bank and the report submitted by the P.W.3 to the bank. It has come in the evidence of P.W.17 who was one of the borrowers that the loan amount was shown to have been sanctioned in his name but the said amount was never received by him and the document at Exhibit 45 was found to be in possession of the accused No.1. The accused No.1 was aware of the consequences if he failed to submit the required documents pertaining to the loan proposals and more particularly when the loan amounts were shown to have been disbursed. He, therefore, approached the accused Nos.1 and 3. He virtually threatened the accused No.3 to leave the inside latch of the Western side door open, otherwise he would cause some harm to himself. Accused No.1 clearly hatched a conspiracy with the assistance of the accused No.2 and planned to set on fire certain documents lying on the counter of the bank with the help of accused Nos.3,4 and 5. After these documents were burnt it was easy for him to reply to the bank management that the documents 25 cr-apeal-407-451-91 which were missing from the loan disbursement were in the bank only and perhaps they got burnt during the fire. It was necessary for him to do so to save his job, but ultimately he could not succeed in the same. Thus the motive of the accused No.1 in setting the documents on fire in the bank with the help of accused No.2 was writ large.