Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 422 (AP)

G. Hemalatha v. State Of Andhra Pradesh

2020-06-16

CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

body2020
JUDGMENT Cheekati Manavendranath Roy, J. - This petition is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of her arrest. 2. The petitioner is A-1 in Crime No. 15 of 2020 of Nagalapuram Police Station, Chittoor District. 3. The alleged offences against the petitioner are under Section 403, 406, 420 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "I.P.C."). 4. Briefly stated, it is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner herein worked as an Accountant in Mandala Mahila Samakya from the year 2008 to 2019. A-2 was the Treasurer of the said Samakya from the year 2012 to 2018 and A-3 was the Secretary of the said Samakya from the year 2014 to 2018. All the three accused have misappropriated a sum of Rs.70,98,096/- of the said Samakya for their pecuniary benefit. The cheques for the above amount of money were issued in their names. Therefore, they have committed the aforesaid offences. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is only an employee worked as Accountant of the said Samakya and she has to prepare only the cheques and she is not the cheque issuing authority and on instructions from her superiors, that the cheques were prepared by her and they were signed by the others and as such she is not responsible for misappropriating any such amount of the Samakya, as alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that the petitioner is a handicapped woman and she is innocent and she did not commit any offence as alleged by the prosecution and thereby prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to her. 7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the Criminal Petition. He would submit that being an Accountant of the said Samakya, she is responsible for preparing the cheques and maintaining the accounts of the Samakya and processing the said cheques. He would further submit that the cheques were issued relating to the said amount which was misappropriated in the name of the petitioner and other accused, who are A-2 and A-3. He would further submit that the cheques were issued relating to the said amount which was misappropriated in the name of the petitioner and other accused, who are A-2 and A-3. So, it prima facie proves that she has played a role along with A-2 and A-3 in misappropriation of huge sum of lakhs of rupees of the said Samakya and investigation is still pending in this case. So, in view of the gravity of the offence and serious nature of the allegations in this case, he would pray for dismissal of the petition. 8. Perused the record. 9. The fact that the petitioner worked as Accountant of Mandala Mahila Samakya from the year 2008 to 2019 is not in dispute. Similarly, A-2 and A-3 are the Treasurer and Secretary of the said Samakya during the relevant period, is also not in dispute. The cheques that were issued for withdrawal of Rs.70,98,096/- are in the name of the petitioner herein, who is A-1, and A-2 and A-3. So, it prima facie shows that they have withdrawn the said huge sum of Rs. 70,98,096/-. It is not properly accounted for. So, they have to explain as to why the said huge sum of Samakya was withdrawn by way of cheques in their names. So, these facts prima facie show that the accusation made against the petitioner is well founded. Having regard to the fact that it is a case of siphoning of huge sum of Rs.70,98,096/- of the said Samakya and as investigation in this case is pending and in view of the gravity of the offence and seriousness of the allegations, this Court is of the considered view that it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. 10. Therefore, this Criminal Petition is dismissed.