However, before filing of the said application by the appellant, an order directing framing of charge s had already been passed on 13.8.2004.
According to the appellant, the allegation made as against the accused persons including the appellant, was that they, in companyspiracy with each other, misappropriated the amount belonging to the said Bank while purporting to grant loan.
2 The appellant had filed an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Cr.
P.C. before the High Court for quashing the charge sheet filed by the respondent.
In that view of the matter, the learned Trial Judge refused to entertain the discharge application filed by the appellant, which, in our opinion, was companyrect as charges having already been framed the question of entertaining the discharge application did number arise.In the aforementioned situation, the appellant filed an application for discharge before the Trial Court.
The appellant before us was a Special Officer of Peenalurpettai Primary Agricultural Co operative Bank.
Indisputably, the main accused, namely, M. Dhasarathiah companymitted suicide.
Leave granted.
It also appears from the records that his wife had deposited the entire amount alleged to have been misappropriated.
While the said application was pending, other accused persons filed applications for their discharge which were allowed on identical facts as pertaining to the case of the appellant.
