Retired ATS officer now mired in co-op bank scam
REPRESENTATIONAL IMAGE
Sessions court rejected bail application of the former policeman, his wife and six others.
In the case of Rs 47-crore scam at Dhankawadi-basedAdarsh Nagari Co-operative Bank , the prosecution sought to inquire if the retired police sub-inspector (PSI) of the anti-terrorism squad (ATS) who officiated as a director of the bank had the permission from the government to hold the position. On the prosecution’s insistence that there was a need for custodial interrogation in the case, the sessions court on Thursday rejected the anticipatory bail applications of eight accused in the case.
Last week, the Sahakarnagar police booked 63 people including the board of directors, the manager and cashier of the bank located at Balajinagar, registering a case under sections 420 (cheating), 465, 466, 468 and 471 (all related to forgery) of the Indian Penal Code and relevant section of theMaharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in financial establishment establishments) Act (MPID Act).
retired PSI Rajendra Thorave , his wife Ashwini Thorave, government auditors – Pandurang Randive and Pradip Kulkarni, retired government auditor Dadabhau Kale, auditors of the bank – Ramesh Wani and Ajay Rander and a director of the bank – Umesh Kamble, appeared before the court seeking anticipatory bail.
The defence lawyer argued that Thorave and his wife were merely shareholders of the bank and they’d never approached its board to join as director. Though they were directors of the bank between 1996 and 2017, they were not aware they’d been appointed as such, it was claimed. Pointing out that Thorave as a PSI and enrolled with the ATS, was obliged to maintain secrecy, given the importance of his work in helping the government control terrorism. He was an active member of the investigation into the German Bakery blast and the subsequent one at Farashkhana police station. The defence lawyer, further alleged that the Thoraves were shown as directors of the bank in a farcical act by its chairman and other officiating members.
Likewise, the government auditors submitted that they were not involved in the case as they were government auditors and not even member or designated authority of the co-operative bank, to be dealing in the affairs of the institution.
Countering these claims, additional public prosecutor Rajesh Kavediya underscored, “Thorave, while working with the police department had acted as director the co-operative bank between March 1996 and 2005. He was present at 15 board meetings during this time. In fact, he also marked his presence at eight board meetings between April 2004 and March 2011. So he was aware of the loan sanctions and all transactions of the bank. His wife Ashwini served as director between September 2005 and March 2017 and also attending eight board meetings. So the duo cannot claim to be unaware of their directorship at the bank.”
The prosecutor also contended, “To investigate if Thorave had taken requisite government permission to hold the directorship at the bank and to inquire into the bank accounts and properties of the accused, custodial interrogation is necessary. He further asserted that Randive and other auditors were aware that documents submitted for some loans were incomplete, while for some others, they were done without mortgage. In 2004-05 the bank suffered a loss of Rs 98 lakh. However, the auditors showed that the bank reported profit. They evidently did not perform their duties and reneged on their responsibility,” Kavediya argued.
The sessions court rejected all the anticipatory bail applications.
In the case of Rs 47-crore scam at Dhankawadi-based
Last week, the Sahakarnagar police booked 63 people including the board of directors, the manager and cashier of the bank located at Balajinagar, registering a case under sections 420 (cheating), 465, 466, 468 and 471 (all related to forgery) of the Indian Penal Code and relevant section of the
The court had earlier rejected the bail applications of another eight accused. On Thursday, the
The defence lawyer argued that Thorave and his wife were merely shareholders of the bank and they’d never approached its board to join as director. Though they were directors of the bank between 1996 and 2017, they were not aware they’d been appointed as such, it was claimed. Pointing out that Thorave as a PSI and enrolled with the ATS, was obliged to maintain secrecy, given the importance of his work in helping the government control terrorism. He was an active member of the investigation into the German Bakery blast and the subsequent one at Farashkhana police station. The defence lawyer, further alleged that the Thoraves were shown as directors of the bank in a farcical act by its chairman and other officiating members.
Likewise, the government auditors submitted that they were not involved in the case as they were government auditors and not even member or designated authority of the co-operative bank, to be dealing in the affairs of the institution.
Countering these claims, additional public prosecutor Rajesh Kavediya underscored, “Thorave, while working with the police department had acted as director the co-operative bank between March 1996 and 2005. He was present at 15 board meetings during this time. In fact, he also marked his presence at eight board meetings between April 2004 and March 2011. So he was aware of the loan sanctions and all transactions of the bank. His wife Ashwini served as director between September 2005 and March 2017 and also attending eight board meetings. So the duo cannot claim to be unaware of their directorship at the bank.”
The prosecutor also contended, “To investigate if Thorave had taken requisite government permission to hold the directorship at the bank and to inquire into the bank accounts and properties of the accused, custodial interrogation is necessary. He further asserted that Randive and other auditors were aware that documents submitted for some loans were incomplete, while for some others, they were done without mortgage. In 2004-05 the bank suffered a loss of Rs 98 lakh. However, the auditors showed that the bank reported profit. They evidently did not perform their duties and reneged on their responsibility,” Kavediya argued.
The sessions court rejected all the anticipatory bail applications.
Recent Messages ()
Please rate before posting your Review
SIGN IN WITH
Refrain from posting comments that are obscene, defamatory or inflammatory, and do not indulge in personal attacks, name calling or inciting hatred against any community. Help us delete comments that do not follow these guidelines by marking them offensive. Let's work together to keep the conversation civil.