BJP Leader Radha Krishna Vikhe Patil Involved in Major Scam: Fraud Case Filed Against Him and 53 Others

By Lokmat English Desk | Updated: April 30, 2025 16:12 IST2025-04-30T16:12:02+5:302025-04-30T16:12:56+5:30

A significant fraud has come to light involving the illegal diversion of a loan worth 8.86 crore, which was ...

BJP Leader Radha Krishna Vikhe Patil Involved in Major Scam: Fraud Case Filed Against Him and 53 Others | BJP Leader Radha Krishna Vikhe Patil Involved in Major Scam: Fraud Case Filed Against Him and 53 Others

BJP Leader Radha Krishna Vikhe Patil Involved in Major Scam: Fraud Case Filed Against Him and 53 Others

A significant fraud has come to light involving the illegal diversion of a loan worth 8.86 crore, which was initially intended for the distribution of Baseal Dose payments to the members of a sugar cooperative. Instead of distributing the funds to farmers, the loan was misused, and later, it was waived off under the government’s loan waiver scheme, leading to allegations of fraud. As a result, a case has been filed at the Lonni police station against 54 individuals, including BJP leader and Minister Radha Krishna Vikhe Patil, former directors of Dr. Vitthalrao Vikhe Patil Sugar Cooperative Factory, officials from the Sugar Department, and bank officers.

The complaint, filed by Balasaheb Kerunath Vikhe, claims that in 2004, the cooperative’s board of directors forged documents to create a proposal for the Baseal Dose loan. In collusion with officials from Union Bank and Bank of India, they secured loans of 3.11 crore and 5.74 crore, respectively. However, the sanctioned amounts were never distributed to the farmers. The loan was later waived off under the government's loan waiver program, adding to the fraudulent actions. The complaint also holds officials from both banks and the cooperative’s management from 2004 to 2010 responsible. Radha Krishna Vikhe Patil, who led the cooperative, was also part of the board during this period. Charges of fraud, conspiracy, and document forgery have been leveled against the 54 individuals involved, including the factory’s executive director and the Sugar Commissioner.

Individuals Named in the Case:

A wide range of individuals, including directors, officials, and associates from the cooperative, have been implicated in the case, such as:

Annasaheb Murali Kadu

Annasaheb Sarangdhar Mhaskhe

Vitthal Marutravo Gaikwad

Vijay Shaligram Chanture

Rambhau Shankarrao Bhusal

Gopinath Genooji Dhamke

Lakshman Punjaji Pulate

Bhausaheb Baburao Gholap

Appasaheb Karbhari Dighe

Karbhari Bhausaheb Aher

Bhaskarrao Nivrutti Kharade

Dattatray Sahebarav Kharade

Ashok Vitthal Nibe

Tukaram Namdev Bendere

Sakhahari Punjaji Dethe

Babasaheb Bhagwat Aher

Sarangdhar Namdev Dushing

Deepak Gorakshnath Patil

Sampat Bhaurav Chitalkar

Parvatabai Lakshman Tambe

Bhamabai Radhakrishna Kale

Sadasiv Karbhari Golhar

Prabhakar Pandurang Nighute

Vitthalrao Gangadhar Mandre

Bapusahab Babasaheb Gholap

Dhondiba Vithoba Pulate

Gangabisan Bhikchand Asawa

Vishwasrao Keshavrao Kadu

Abasaheb Shashikant Lakshman Gholap

Shantnath Eknath Aher

Sakhahari Nath Magar

Kashinath Murali Kadu

Sarjerao Sonyabapu Kharade

Subhash Balkrishna Kharade

Kerunath Sambhaji Chechre

Kakasaheb Sopanrao Mhaskhe

Bansi Baloo Tambe

Babasaheb Kisan Lohate

Satish Shivaji Sasane

Balasaheb Bapuji Parkhe

Lakshmibai Narayan Kahar

Mathurabai Sopanrao Dighe

Kesharbai Nalini Mohaniraj Devkar

Rambhau Shankarrao Bhusal Patil

Muralidhar Mahaloo Pulate Patil

Supreme Court’s Intervention:

Initially, Dadasaheb Pawar sought intervention from the Governor and the High Court to pursue legal action against the cooperative. The Rahata court subsequently ordered an investigation and the filing of charges. However, the cooperative challenged the decision in the High Court, which overruled the lower court's ruling. In response, Balasaheb Kerunath Vikhe and Pawar appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court upheld the Rahata court's decision and directed the registration of the case, which led to the investigation. Balasaheb Kerunath Vikhe’s complaint references this Supreme Court ruling.

Open in app