Manager opens bank accounts with initials of BMC & BEST, dupes housing society of lakhs

Cheques meant to be paid to the BMC and BEST by the housing society were instead paid to accounts owned by the convict, named BM Company, BM Corporation and BEST Engineering. An FIR was filed under sections including cheating, forgery and criminal breach of trust after the offences came to light in 2011.

According to submissions made before the court, the main accused Jagdish Joshi was serving as a manager in a society in South Mumbai. Joshi was tasked with collecting maintenance depositing the amount in the society’s account and pay for utilities through cheques. It came to light that an amount of Rs 90,000 collected from one society member was not deposited in the society’s bank account.

Further, 16 cheques payable to BMC and BEST for utilities, including electricity and civic charges were instead paid to companies owned by Joshi. It was also alleged that he had claimed that the society’s appointed auditor was not available for three years as he was going abroad when the auditor had not communicated any such thing.

In his defence, Joshi claimed that he had actually paid charges to BMC and BEST as there were no default notices issued by them to the society. The court said that there were no notices which shows that Joshi may have paid the civic body and BEST regularly but misappropriated the amount by showing extra charges.

The prosecution examined bank officials where Joshi had the accounts, society members and others. The court said that the handwriting on the account opening forms of BM Company, BM Corporation and BEST Engineering matched the specimen handwriting of Joshi.

“…prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused being manager entrusted with work of paying charges, has received the cheques of Rs 12,89,966. But it was not paid to “BMC” and “BEST” and committed criminal breach of trust,” metropolitan magistrate Nadeem Patel said.

While the accused sought leniency considering his age, the court said that old age alone is not the criteria to decide the quantum of sentence.

“Due to cheating and forged by the accused several members of the society have suffered. They are also victim of the crime… In such type of serious cases if considering the age of the accused leniency is taken then it will be unjust for the members, who have suffered loss,” the court said.

It said while the maximum punishment for the offences is life imprisonment, considering his age and facts of the case, the three-year imprisonment term is enough to meet the ends of justice.