High Court seeks report from state in Murshidabad co-op bank ‘fraud’
Kolkata: Within days of Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee ordering an enquiry into unaccounted cash in some of the cooperative banks in the state, Calcutta High Court on Monday directed the state to file a report on number of FIRs filed against the manager of an agricultural cooperative bank in Murshidabad who allegedly defrauded depositors.
The bench of Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Gaurang Kanth was moved by the petitioner (manager) for anticipatory bail. He was accused of committing fraud by agents of the society by not returning the maturity amount to depositors. The cooperative bank is registered with the Multi State
Cooperative Societies.
The petitioner alleged that the complainant (agent) had left the cooperative society in 2023 and did not submit any policy for fiscal year 2023-24. According to the complainant, he along with some other agents collected Rs 12683270 from the members of the society and deposited them in the bank. One month before maturity, he submitted the passbooks in the bank. He alleged despite the maturity date having elapsed the manager didn’t pay maturity amounts.
A police case was registered against the petitioner. The petitioner’s counsel Milon Mukherjee refuted saying his client paid all the maturity amounts.
The court had earlier called for a report. The Deputy Solicitor General (DSG) said a report was filed from the Department of Cooperatives. But now instructions from the Agriculture Department are needed. The court said find out which is the Department concerned by next week.
The court asked if any further complaint was filed against the petitioner by the state. “State shall submit a report within a week on whether any other FIR was registered against petitioner and other office bearers of the Cooperative Society by depositors,” court directed.
The court directed the DSG to get instructions on the extent of default and the corpus available with the Department concerned. “Allegation is either the society gave loans to fictitious persons or the amount had been siphoned away,” court observed.
