HC grants anticipatory bail to 3 CAs

By Lokmat English Desk | Updated: August 24, 2023 19:30 IST2023-08-24T19:30:12+5:302023-08-24T19:30:12+5:30

Lokmat News Network Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar The Aurangabad division bench of Bombay High Court comprising R M Joshi granted anticipatory ...

HC grants anticipatory bail to 3 CAs | HC grants anticipatory bail to 3 CAs

HC grants anticipatory bail to 3 CAs

Lokmat News Network

Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar

The Aurangabad division bench of Bombay High Court comprising R M Joshi granted anticipatory bail to the three chartered accountants and co-accused in the Adarsh Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha scam Maruti Giri, Prasanna Kala and Dighe (full name not known) on Thursday.

There are 51 accused in the case registered with the Cidco police station based on the complaint lodged by the Special Audit Cooperative Institute about the Adarsh scam. The mentioned CAs are the co-accused in the case. All the accused have been booked under IPC sections 406, 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120 B, 217 and 34 and sections 3 and 4 of the interests of depositors Act. The charges included the distribution of loans without a mortgage, without checking the financial ability of the Patsanstha, less recovery and others.

The CAs were appointed by the government and they audited Adarsh Patsanshta between 2016 and 2022. Although, they needed to submit the audit report within 15 days, but they did not present it. They have not fulfilled their responsibilities by not unveiling the misappropriation in the Patsanstha.

Earlier, the session court rejected the anticipatory bail of the CAs. Hence, the three CAs approached the High Court through senior counsel R N Dhorde, D V Hon and Adv Sambhaji Tope. Acting chief public prosecutor D R Kale appeared for the prosecution.

On behalf of the applicants, it was argued that the CAs were appointed for the audit of the Patsanstha for a specific year. They are not the employees of the cooperative department and they have submitted the audit reports of the concerned year to the district deputy registrar. Not submitting a special report in 15 days is not a crime. It can be negligence and there is provision of fine for negligence. The scam came to the fore after the submission of the audit reports. They showed the irregularities but the district deputy registrar had not taken any action.

Open in app