JUDGMENT : Sadhana S. Jadhav, J. The appellants herein are convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 420 r/w. Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code and under sections 255 to 257 and section 259 and 260 of Indian Penal Code and they are sentenced to suffer maximum imprisonment on counts for the charge of sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 420 r/w. Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/-, Rs.20,000/-, Rs.25,000/- Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.1,000/- respectively on each counts, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months, six months, fifteen days respectively on each counts by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai in Sessions Case No. 249 of 2007 @ 678 of 2007 @ 916 of 2007 @ 102 of 2008 @ 711 of 2008 @ 347 of 2009 vide Judgment and Order dated 3rd April 2013. Hence, these Appeals. 2. Such of the facts necessary for the decision of these appeals are as follows:- 3. Mumbai District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. had floated a scheme of housing loan in the year 2002 in order to enable the people from lower middle class to have a house of their own. In the year May, 2003 bank had received application forms from several persons seeking housing loan, more particularly in the scheme of Vikrant builders which was being developed by one Ganpat Salunkhe, original accused No. 4. The borrowers in the present case, more particularly, accused No. 1,3,6,7 and 9 were sanctioned loan upto July, 2003. The loan was to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/- to 4,50,000/-as per the procedure contemplated. The initial part payment was made by borrowers and the pay orders and cheques were drawn in the name of the builder i.e. Mahalaxmi Enterprises. At one point of time, it was noticed that the borrowers had discontinued paying installments after paying initial installments. Therefore, notices were issued to the said borrowers. However, there was no response to the notice and therefore, the bank found it necessary to enquire into the said case. 4. In the course of enquiry, it had transpired that the documents which were annexed with the loan proposal were not genuine documents. Most of the application forms were partially filled or filled in without giving any details except name of the borrowers. 4. In the course of enquiry, it had transpired that the documents which were annexed with the loan proposal were not genuine documents. Most of the application forms were partially filled or filled in without giving any details except name of the borrowers. On verification, the annexures were not found genuine and therefore, the bank officers had visited the site of Vikrant builders. At that stage, it had transpired that the building was incomplete. Not only that, but the said flats which were hypothecated with the bank against promissory notes were sold to third person. The bank was left with no other alternative but to lodge first information report with the police. Since, the borrowers had not responded to the notice and their whereabouts were not known to the officers of the bank, they could not have filed dispute under section 91 of the Maharashra Cooperative Societies Act. The loan was not a secured loan. Therefore, F.I.R. was lodged by Sudhakar Bhosale (P.W.1) on 13/11/2005, on the basis of which Crime No. 63 of 2005 was registered with Vikhroli Police Station. 5. The investigating officer was able to arrest some of the accused. The statement of witnesses were recorded. The investigating officer had also recorded statement of subsequent purchasers who had disclosed that they had booked the flats. They had even paid seed money. They had pursued the matter with the developer Mr. Ganpat Salunkhe. However, they found it futile to approach the police. In the course of investigation, it had transpired that all the accused had conspired with each other to dupe cooperative bank. Perused the papers and the evidence adduced by the prosecution. Prima facie, it is pertinent to note that the investigating team had not arraigned any of the bank officers as accused in the present case, although there is material to indicate that loans were not sanctioned in accordance with law. 6. Although the FIR was filed by Vikroli Police Station, taking into consideration the proportion and gravity of the offence, the matter was referred for investigation to the Economic Offences Wing and was registered as Crime No. 26 of 2005. 7. At the trial, the prosecution has examined as many as 27 witnesses. The original accused No. 3 has stepped into the witness box and his evidence is recorded on oath as defence witness No. 3. 8. 7. At the trial, the prosecution has examined as many as 27 witnesses. The original accused No. 3 has stepped into the witness box and his evidence is recorded on oath as defence witness No. 3. 8. P.W.1 Sudhakar Bhosale was officiating as branch manager of the Mumbai District Central Cooperative Bank, Vikhroli branch. He had succeeded Mr. Aklujkar, who had sanctioned the loan to all the accused persons, in all probabilities after verification of the claims. P.W. 1 has named all the accused person besides the absconding accused Mrs. Dorairaj S.A. Bhist and others. Present accused were found defaulters. According to him, even before initiating investigation i.e. in the course of enquiry itself, it had transpired that most of the accused persons had opened bogus account in the name of Mahalaxmi Enterprises and had encashed the pay orders. According to him, accused No. 1 Vinodsingh Rawat had encashed from the account of Mr. Salunkhe and accused nos. 6, 7 and 8 had opened the account in Mahanagar Cooperative Bank, Mulund and had encashed pay order. The witness has proved the loan application and the documents annexed thereto, which form part of the record and the said documents have been exhibited. 9. P.W.1, Sudhakar Bhosale has admitted in the cross-examination that Vinodsingh Rawat had paid some installments of the loan transaction. It is admitted that the loan was sanctioned and disbursed to the accused persons during the period May, 2003 to July, 2003. It is admitted by the Bank Officer P.W. 1 that in the eventuality that the loan was paid, they would have had no grievance against the borrowers, and rightly so. Since the accused discontinued to pay the installments, the bank officers were constrained to make an enquiry. Bank had neither taken any steps against the guarantors to the said loan account nor the people who had introduced the borrower to the bank, and the FIR was lodged only against the borrowers and the builders. Surprisingly, P.W. 2 Arun Akluchkar. was the branch manager of the said bank during the period when the loan was sanctioned and disbursed. According to P.W. 2, loan was sanctioned only after verification of the loan proposal which was found to be correct. That, the loan proposals were genuine, but were found to be forged documents only after initiating investigation by the police. 10. was the branch manager of the said bank during the period when the loan was sanctioned and disbursed. According to P.W. 2, loan was sanctioned only after verification of the loan proposal which was found to be correct. That, the loan proposals were genuine, but were found to be forged documents only after initiating investigation by the police. 10. P.W.3, Basuraj Lingayat is also an employee of the bank. It is clear from the records that most of the cheques were signed by one S.A. Sing on behalf of Mahalaxmi Enterprises in favour of S.K. Interiors. Mr. S.A. Sing (Bisht i.e. absconding accused No. 10 had signed said cheque as proprietor of Mahalaxmi Enterprises. 11. Prosecution has also examined the bank officers of Mahanagar Cooperative Bank, Vartak Nagar, Manager of Parsik Janata Cooperative Bank Ltd. Mr. Tikone had opened account in the said Bank in the name of Mahalaxmi Builders. 12. According to P.W.5 Cheque was issued in the name of accused No. 3 Shahaji Patil. P.W. 5 has specifically disclosed that the cheque which was issued from the account of Mahalaxmi Enterprises, it was credited in the name of Appa Ambole and Appa Ambole received the said amount. According to him, Mahalaxmi Enterprises had also issued a cheque of Rs. 2,26,000/- in favour of the accused No. 3 Shahaji Patil and the same was encashed. It is pertinent to note that P.W. 5 had given candid submission before the court that the bank had suffered no loss. Although there is sufficient material against Mr. Bhist, it appears from the record that police had not made genuine efforts to trace the accused No. 10. It is admitted by the prosecution that clerks and supervisors have to be extremely diligent. 13. P.W.7, Chandrakant Karande was working as assistant in the complainant bank. Exh. 161 shows that the accused Shahaji Patil had opened an account in Kurla Nagari Sahakari Cooperative Bank Limited. A cheque was initially drawn in the name of Ramchandra Tatoba Gavade, which was scored off and the name of Shahaji Patil was mentioned. He had shown his address as Jaihind Zopadpatti, Mankhurd. 14. P.W.8 Mr. Bharat Mayekar was working in the General Stamp Office since 1982. According to him, loan proposal was forwarded with his signature to the complainant bank. Upon perusal of the loan proposal of Mr. He had shown his address as Jaihind Zopadpatti, Mankhurd. 14. P.W.8 Mr. Bharat Mayekar was working in the General Stamp Office since 1982. According to him, loan proposal was forwarded with his signature to the complainant bank. Upon perusal of the loan proposal of Mr. Shahaji Patil, it is stated that the documents referred to them by the police were not registered in the office of General Stamp Office. He has categorically stated that none of the documents are registered in his office and accordingly, he had replied to the same. It is stated that there was no franking endorsement on page No. 3 and work of franking was never undertaken by their office. 15. At this stage, it would be relevant to take into consideration, exhibits-425 and 426 which are proved by PW-18. Exhibit-425 is an agreement for sale between the appellant Shahaji Patil and Ganpat Salunkhe with Registration No. 72 of 2003. It is signed by both the accused i.e. Shahaji Patil and Ganpat Salunkhe and is attested with their photographs. On the very first page of the said document which is filed by General Stamp Office there is space for signature of one V.M. Dhanvijay. The signature could not be identified. That, Dhanvijay is neither a witness nor an accused. However, PW-8, Mayekar admitted that the Dhanvijay was officiating in the said office. However, the period is not known. The period during which he was working, is not known but the name is apparent on the first page of the document. It is to be presumed that he was working during the period from 2002 to 2003. The document is dated 14th July 2003. It is pertinent to note that in order to substantiate that the said agreement for sale has undergone the process of franking the accused had filed a cash credit memo purportedly issued by Shriram Stamp Vendor, Vashi. It is issued in the name of Ankush Santre for a sum of Rs.6,150/-. It bears the stamp of the registration No. of the agreement for sale i.e. 72 of 2003. It is not known as to how the bank official could accept an agreement for sale along with a receipt which was issued in the name of Ankush Santre. At the trial also the prosecution has not examined the Stamp Vendor. It bears the stamp of the registration No. of the agreement for sale i.e. 72 of 2003. It is not known as to how the bank official could accept an agreement for sale along with a receipt which was issued in the name of Ankush Santre. At the trial also the prosecution has not examined the Stamp Vendor. It appears that there was no specific investigation about the firm Shriram Stamp Vendor, Vashi. 16. At this stage, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that this document was never executed by the appellant Shahaji Patil. According to him, the document was concocted by none other than Ganpat Salunke for the purpose of seeking the loan facility. However, there is material on record to indicate that the appellant Shahaji Patil has received an amount of Rs.2,26,000/- from Ganpat Salunke for the reasons not explained by the appellant Shahaji Patil, although he had stepped into the witness box. In fact, this was, within the special knowledge of the accused Shahaji Patil and it was incumbent upon him to explain the same especially when he had chosen to step into the witness box and examine himself. Moreover, the bank officer is not an accused in the present case. It is clear from the said document that both the parties have signed the said document. There is no material to indicate that the said document has been registered with the Registrar of Land Record and hence the conspiracy between accused Shahaji Patil and Ganpat Salunke is writ large on the face of the record. That, the said documents at exhibit-425 and 426 were prepared only to mislead the bank and dupe the bank with a substantial amount. 17. The prosecution has also placed implicit reliance upon the evidence of PW-9 Lata Wazga who runs grocery shop in Sanpada and she had introduced the accused No.2 Tikone in Parsik Janata Cooperative Bank. It is pertinent to note that the accused no.2 Tikone had opened an account in Parsik Janata Co-operative Bank in the name of Mahalaxmi Enterprises. The modus operandi was the same. He had also applied for loan to the same bank for the purpose of home loan. Bogus documents were submitted. The bank has issued a cheque of Rs. 3,42,000/-. 18. That, Tikone had also withdrawn Rs.16,000/- from an amount sanctioned to accused No.3 Shahaji Patil. In fact, Rs. The modus operandi was the same. He had also applied for loan to the same bank for the purpose of home loan. Bogus documents were submitted. The bank has issued a cheque of Rs. 3,42,000/-. 18. That, Tikone had also withdrawn Rs.16,000/- from an amount sanctioned to accused No.3 Shahaji Patil. In fact, Rs. 3,42,000/- was granted as home loan to Shahaji Patil, out of which Chandrakant Tikone had withdrawn Rs.16,000/-. Shahaji Patil has received Rs.2,26,000/- and Rs.56,000/- was received by Appa Ambole. It appears that Chandrakant Tikone and Appa Ambole were working as middle men/agents for Ganpat Salunke and bogus borrowers. 19. Pw-19, Bikaji Hankare was working with Mumbai District Central Co-operative Bank Limited. He was officiating in Vikhroli Branch from 2002 to 2004 in the inspection Section of the said bank. He was the first person to receive the applications seeking loan, from the borrowers. According to him, he had gone to the spot and verified the site of construction, he had examined the document filed by the borrowers as well as Mahalaxmi Enterprises. He had received only photographs and it is further pertinent to note that the loans were sanctioned on the face of the photographs of the said document, that too without verification. After realising that there is default in payment of the installments, the bank had made enquiry and in the said enquiry it had transpired that the borrowers (present accused persons) had not booked any flat as proposed by them. The witness claims to be in closed proximity with accused Ganpat Salunkhe. It is admitted by the witness in the cross examination that he had not verified the registration documents and the said agreement between the vendor and the vendee. It is admitted by the witness he had recommended sanction of the said loan. It is categorically admitted that he had not taken the measurements of the said structure of building neither the fact as to whether the builder had received permission from CIDCO to develop the said plot. He had also learnt that the plots were given to some of the proposed purchasers. 20. It is surprising that the said witness has not been arraigned as an accused for verifying the proposals, incorrectly and recommending loans although the borrowers were not entitled to the same. There are several lacunas. He had also learnt that the plots were given to some of the proposed purchasers. 20. It is surprising that the said witness has not been arraigned as an accused for verifying the proposals, incorrectly and recommending loans although the borrowers were not entitled to the same. There are several lacunas. In fact, his admission that he was in close proximity with Ganpat Salunkhe speaks volumes for itself. However, at this stage, in the absence of any appeal from State or any Suo Motto action by the Court. It would not be possible to set the clock back and consequentially the benefit would go to the accused. 21. It is the same case with accused no.7 Suresh Shetty who had filed the certificate of Chartered Accountant i.e. PW.-20 who has admitted that he has not prepared any document much less the document which is at Article F and submitted by accused no.7 Shetty. It is admitted that he was acquainted with accused no.7 Shetty and he used to give suggestions pertaining to Income Tax. The witness had no personal knowledge about the business of Shetty. 22. Implicit reliance can be placed upon the evidence of prosecution witness nos. 22, 23 and 24. 23. Pw.22, Mr. Golatkar has deposed before the Court that he wanted to purchase a room. Appa Ambole and Chandrakant Tikone had introduced him to Ganpat Salunke. He was informed by Appa Ambole that he would have to pay an amount of Rs.37,000/- for registration of the room and at his request the accused no. 4 had given him a room in Vikrant Apartment. The spot was shown by accused no.4. The transaction was settled. He had to pay only Rs. 37,000/- for registration of Stamp Duty to Appa Ambole. He was assured that the loan would be sanctioned for the purpose of purchasing a room and then he would get possession only after the builder receives the cheque. The accused No.4 had told PW-22 to open an account in the Indian Bank. PW-22 had not received any cheque or the sanctioned loan amount. He had not received the possession of the said flat till 2010 and finally he had given up the said thought of getting possession of the said room. It is more than clear that it was Ambole and Tikone who were working as Agents and had brought people to Ganpat Salunkhe. He had not received the possession of the said flat till 2010 and finally he had given up the said thought of getting possession of the said room. It is more than clear that it was Ambole and Tikone who were working as Agents and had brought people to Ganpat Salunkhe. PW-22 has admitted that he did not approach the police or any other authority because Ganpat Salunkhe had assured to give him a room. It is further clear that Ambole, accused no. 5 and accused no.7, Suresh Shetty in collusion with Ganpat Salunkhe had conspired with the officers of the bank to forge documents and obtained loan. 24. Similarly PW-23 Suresh Jagdale was also taken to Ganpat Salunkhe by Appa Ambole and he was treated in a similar manner. However, he had given an advance amount of Rs.1,75,000/-. No receipt was issued. Accused No.5, accused no. 2 and accused no.4 had obtained his signature on blank documents. He had made several attempts to contact the accused persons but to no avail. Finally he had realised that he was cheated but at the same time he had learnt about registration of agreement for sale in the Registrar's office at Kopar Khairane. 25. Pw-24, Annaji Gaikwad was another victim of said scam. He was also taken to Vikrant Apartment by accused no.5 where he was informed that the price of the said room was Rs.3,35,000/-. He had paid Rs.15,000/-in cash. They had obtained his signature on blank paper and thereafter, he neither got the possession of the said room nor he had received any benefits. He had also learnt that a room was registered in his name and loan was sanctioned in his favour. However, he had not received any amount. 26. The prosecution case is then unfolded by PW-26, Sunil Kadam working as P.S.I in Economic Offences Wing. Initially offence was registered as Crime No. 26 of 2005. He had recorded the statement of some of the witnesses and had made enquiry about Subhash Singh. He has also recorded the statement of Mr. Bisht without arresting him. The lacunas in investigation are writ large on the face of the record. He has admitted that PW-26, Sunil Kadam had not prepared any panchnama or seized all the documents. He had not taken document from Shahaji Patil. He had not made any enquiry about Mr. He has also recorded the statement of Mr. Bisht without arresting him. The lacunas in investigation are writ large on the face of the record. He has admitted that PW-26, Sunil Kadam had not prepared any panchnama or seized all the documents. He had not taken document from Shahaji Patil. He had not made any enquiry about Mr. Dhanvijay from General Stamp Office neither he had recorded his statement. According to him, the F.I.R. was registered prior to obtaining the report from General Stamp Office and at the time of lodging of F.I.R. the commission of offence of General Stamp Office was not confirmed. It is apparent that the investing agency had tried their level best to save the accused from any prosecution. Similarly PW-27, Rajendrakumar Baviskar who was also attached to the Economic Offence Wing has stated that he had collected the original loan applications of all the accused as well as the documents from the bank, where the accused persons had opened an account only in order to get benefit from the said loan amount. It appears that the said officer had only collected the document from the complainant bank. However, there was no proper investigation. It is proved by the investing officer that it had transpired during the investigation that accused no.1 Vinodsingh Rawat had taken home loan from Bombay Co-operative Bank by submitting forged document for the same. He had filed registered agreement for sale without there being any sale and purchase agreement. That the amount of loan sanctioned in favour of accused no.1 had gone into his account. Accused no. 4 Vinodsingh Rawat had withdrawn an amount of Rs.50,000/- from the account of Bisht (absconding accused). In fact the cheque was deposited in the account of Ganpat Salunkhe in the Federal Bank. That the prosecution has established that accused no.2 Chandrakant Tikone had opened a false account bearing no. 23 of 1091 in Parsik Janata Co-operative Bank as a proprietor of Mahalaxmi Enterprises. He had deposited Rs.3,42,000/- and in fact, the said pay order was pertaining to the loan of Shahaji Patil. Accused No. 2 had joined hands with accused no.3 Shahaji Patil and had given a cheque of Rs.2,26,000/- to him and the cheque of Rs.60,000/- to Ambole and had withdrawn Rs.55,000/- for himself. He had deposited Rs.3,42,000/- and in fact, the said pay order was pertaining to the loan of Shahaji Patil. Accused No. 2 had joined hands with accused no.3 Shahaji Patil and had given a cheque of Rs.2,26,000/- to him and the cheque of Rs.60,000/- to Ambole and had withdrawn Rs.55,000/- for himself. It is also established that the accused no.3 had prepared forged and fabricated documents in conspiracy with Ambole, Tikone and Salunkhe and had shown that the document had undergone the process of franking. A cheque of Rs.2,26,000/- which he had taken from Mr. Tikone was deposited by him in his own account in Kurla Nagrik Co-operative Bank. 27. As far as accused no.4 is concerned there is no doubt that he has posed as developer of Vikrant Apartment and had created an impression that he had sold flats to the accused borrowers, that he had received pay orders in his name, he had parted with some of the amount in favour of the other accused persons. He had conspired with Bisht and had duped the bank of whole amount. When the bank had enquired about the said building, after there was default on the part of the accused persons to pay the installments, it had transpired that the building was incomplete and the same rooms were sold to other purchasers. The role of accused nos. 3 and 6 are also established. 28. Accused No.6 Bapu Torne had also prepared forged document in order to obtain housing loan and has received pay order of Rs.3,50,000/- which was deposited in the account of Bisht. However, Bapu Torne had withdrawn the amount of said order and misappropriated the same. 29. Similarly, accused no.7 Shetty had also obtained the bogus housing loan and received pay order of Rs.3,73,000/- and had deposited the same in the account of Bisht and it had then transpired that an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- was deposited in his own account in the name of Mirza Trading Company. The accused no.8 Ramesh Boricha in Criminal Appeal No. 527 of 2013 had also received the pay order of Rs.3,70,000/-. The amount was deposited in the account of Bisht and he had withdrawn the said amount. Accused Manoj Rawat had received Rs.3,38,000/- towards housing loan. He had withdrawn the amount of the pay order. 30. There is ample material against Bisht. The amount was deposited in the account of Bisht and he had withdrawn the said amount. Accused Manoj Rawat had received Rs.3,38,000/- towards housing loan. He had withdrawn the amount of the pay order. 30. There is ample material against Bisht. The investigating agency had recorded his statement like any other witness but has not caused his arrest for the reasons best known to the investigating agency and he was said to be an absconding accused at the time of trial. Accused no.11, Ajay Madan who is punished only upto rising of the Court had also forged documents and extended help to all the other accused person. He was beneficiary to the tune of Rs.9,00,000/- and the accused Durairaj (absconding) had also received an amount of Rs.3,73,000/- It is admitted in the cross examination by PW-27 that the bank had recovered the loan amount of other accused except Shetty and Shahaji Patil by selling their mortgaged property. It is admitted by PW-7 that except agreement of sale of Shahaji Patil all other agreement for sale were registered document. It is pertinent to note that till 22nd February 2016 none of the accused were arrested and their statements were recorded under section 161 of Cr.PC. That, PW-27 had visited the site he had noticed that the structure was built but there was no construction going on. All the pay orders were encashed either by opening bogus accounts or by depositing the pay order in their personal account. 31. It is strange that PW-27 had admitted that he has not found any incriminating role of the employees of the bank including the manager who had sanctioned the said loans. According to him since the agreement for sale except that of Shetty and Shahaji Patil all other were registered document and therefore, there was no occasion for the sanctioning authority to even suspect that they were bogus proposal. 32. It is established by the prosecution that the accused Bisht was in close proximity with the employees of the bank and builder Ganpat Salunkhe. That, Tikone and Ambole had worked as agents for accused Bisht and had brought the alleged prospective purchasers for flats in Vikrant Apartment which was to be constructed by accused no.4 Ganpat Salunkhe. That, the agreement for sale filed by Suresh Shetty and Sahaji Patil were forged and fabricated document. That, Tikone and Ambole had worked as agents for accused Bisht and had brought the alleged prospective purchasers for flats in Vikrant Apartment which was to be constructed by accused no.4 Ganpat Salunkhe. That, the agreement for sale filed by Suresh Shetty and Sahaji Patil were forged and fabricated document. There is no evidence to show that the said documents were registered. Accused no.10 Bisht had opened the account in Mahanagar Co-operative Bank and Mandavi Co-operative Bank in the name of Mahalaxmi Enterprises and had obtained all the pay orders from the co-operative bank which were issued in the name of Mahalaxmi Enterprises and had misappropriated the same. Accused No.2 had opened the account in the name of Mahalaxmi Enterprises in Parsik Janata Sahakari Bank and accused no.3 Shahaji Patil had filed forged and fabricated documents and was beneficiary to the tune of Rs.2,26,000/- from the said scam. The modus operandi of all the accused was the same. It is true that there are lacunas in investigation as well as there are shortcomings in the prosecution case, at the time of trial. However, it cannot be said that the accused are entitled to benefit of doubt due to lacunas on the part of the investigating agency or the prosecution. Since the offences in the present case are established beyond reasonable doubt by filing relevant documents on record. 33. It is true that the punishment awarded to the accused is disproportionate compared to the gravity awarded to accused nos. 1,2,5,6,7,8,9,10,11 are disproportionate to the gravity of the offence committed by them. That, it is an economic offence, which was well planned and public money has been misappropriated to a large extent. It is sorry state of affairs that the investigating agency could not trace where about of the absconding accused Bisht who had in fact worked as a master mind in the whole scam. However, it needs to be reiterated that in the absence of an appeal by state the punishment cannot be enhanced, and also there is no notice of enhancement. 34. The accused no.4 Ganpat Salunkhe has been in custody from May 2007 to September 2011 i.e. 4 years and 4 months. He has been in custody since March 2013. The punishment awarded to him is substantive sentence of 7 years and Rs. One Lakh on each count i.e. on 10 counts. 34. The accused no.4 Ganpat Salunkhe has been in custody from May 2007 to September 2011 i.e. 4 years and 4 months. He has been in custody since March 2013. The punishment awarded to him is substantive sentence of 7 years and Rs. One Lakh on each count i.e. on 10 counts. He has undergone 9 years and 10 months till today. 35. The accused no.4 had completed 7 years of substantive sentence in the year 2016 and has been in open prison since 2017 and is undergoing sentence of fine till today. The date of birth of accused Ganpat Salunkhe 02/06/1954 at present he is about 69 years old. It is in these circumstances, that he would be entitled to relief which could be granted to him by virtue of notification dated 31st December 1999 issued by the State of Maharashtra wherein the accused who are above 65 years and are not convicted for imprisonment for life or being prosecuted under the provisions of MPDA, MCOCA, NDPS and the prisoners detained and punished under the central government jurisdiction detention rules, would be entitled to be enlarged forthwith upon completion of 65 years of age. The said notification has further been confirmed by a further notification dated 1st December 2015 issued by the Home Department, Mantralaya wherein by virtue of clause-C persons other than those mentioned in entry no.2 are entitled to be released upon completion of 5 years or more in any offence except life imprisonment. Hence, he would be entitled to set of the rest of the sentence and deserves to be released forthwith. The Criminal Appeal no. 501 of 2013 stands abated as accused no.5 Appa Ambole has expired. The death certificate is taken on record and mark as article 'X' for identification. As far as other accused are concerned, all appeals stand dismissed. Hence, the following order: ORDER : 1. Criminal Appeal No. 460 of 2013, Criminal Appeal No. 453 of 2013, Criminal Appeal No. 501 of 2013, Criminal Appeal No. 470 of 2013, Criminal Appeal No. 527 of 2013 and Criminal Appeal No. 529 of 2013 are dismissed. 2. As far as other accused are concerned, all appeals stand dismissed. Hence, the following order: ORDER : 1. Criminal Appeal No. 460 of 2013, Criminal Appeal No. 453 of 2013, Criminal Appeal No. 501 of 2013, Criminal Appeal No. 470 of 2013, Criminal Appeal No. 527 of 2013 and Criminal Appeal No. 529 of 2013 are dismissed. 2. The Original accused No. 1 Vinodsingh Rawat in Criminal Appeal No. 460 of 2013, Accused No. 3 Shahaji Patil in Criminal Appeal No. 453 of 2013, Accused No. 5 Appa Ambole in Criminal Appeal No. 501 of 2013, Accused No. 2 Chandrakant Tikone in Criminal Appeal No. 470 of 2013. Accused No.8 Ramesh Boricha in Criminal Appeal No. 527 of 2013 and Accused No. 7 Suresh Shetty in Criminal Appeal No. 529 of 2013 shall surrender before the Principal Judge, City Civil and Sessions Judge at Mumbai within four weeks from today. 3. The Criminal appeal No. 501 of 2013 stands abated as the Accused no. 5 Appa Ambole has expired. 4. The Accused No.4, Ganpat Salunkhe in Criminal Appeal No. 603 of 2013 is in custody and is undergoing default sentence in open prison. Criminal Appeal No. 603 of 2013 is partly allowed. The conviction of Accused No. 4 Ganpat Salunkhe for all offences is maintained. The accused no.4 has undergone the substantive sentence on each count and is undergoing default sentence since the year 2016. He is sentenced to the period already undergone. The accused no. 4 Ganpat Salunkhe be released forthwith, if not required in any other offence. 5. The learned Advocate, Ms. Ameeta Kuttikrishnan has espouse the cause of the appellants accused no.4 Ganpat Salunke in Criminal Appeal No. 603 of 2013, accused no. 2 in Criminal Appeal/470/2013, accused no. 8 in Criminal Appeal/527/2013, and accused no. 7 in Criminal Appeal/529/2013 and conducted all the appeals independently as separate appeals and hence, her professional fees are quantified as per rules to be paid to her within three months by High Court Legal Aid Services Committee, Mumbai. Parties to act on an authenticated copy of this order.