UDAY MOHANLAL ACHARYA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal bail application is before us on the reference made by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 23rd August, 2000. The learned Single Judge before whom this criminal bail application was moved was of the view that since a serious question of law about the interpretation of sections 13 and 14 of the Maharashtra protection of Interest of Depositors (Financial establishment) Act, 1999 (for short the Act of 1999 ) and applicability of the proviso to section 167 (2) is involved, the matter needs to be heard by the Division Bench for laying down the law on this point.

(2.) THE petitioner is accused in C. R. No. 36 of 1999 for the offences under section 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal code read with section 3 of the Act of 1999. The petitioner is said to have surrendered on 17th June, 2000 before the designated Court constituted under section 6 of the Act of 1999 and remanded by the concerned designated Court on that day. We read the proceedings which took place after 17th june, 2000 before the designated Court and various orders passed. The said orders are not material for our purposes. On 17th August, 2000, the petitioner made an application before the designated Court for his release under the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 167 of the Code of criminal Procedure since the challan was not filed by the investigating officer. The said application under the proviso to section 167 (2) made on 17th August, 2000 was opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor and the designated court vide its order of the even date rejected the application. The designated Court observed that for cases under the Act of 1999, the provision for filing the charge sheet within the stipulated period under section 167 would give the investigating officer a grossly insufficient period and, therefore, the legislature in its wisdom has made the criminal procedure applicable only so far as may be to cases of the Act of 1999. The learned designated Court held that though there is no conflict between the Code of criminal Procedure and the Act of 1999, the specific provision of the Act of 1999 shall prevail over the general provisions under section 167 of the Code of Criminal procedure. The designated Court accordingly rejected the application. The order passed by the designated Court on 17th August, 2000 has been challenged by the petitioner in bail application No. 2701 of 2000 on 18th August, 2000. The learned Single Judge hearing the bail applications heard the bail application on 22nd August, 2000 and the matter was kept overnight part-heard on 23rd August, 2000. On 23rd august, 2000, as indicated above, the learned Single Judge referred the matter to Division Bench observing that, considering the magnitude of the offence, the question whether the proviso to section 167 (2) of the Code of criminal Procedure is attracted to the offence under the Act of 1999 needs to be considered by the Division Bench for authoritative pronouncement on the point and accordingly directed the registry to seek appropriate orders from the hon ble Chief Justice. The Hon ble Chief Justice on 25th august, 2000 assigned the bail application for hearing to this bench and that is how the matter has come up before us.

(3.) THE Act of 1999 came into force on 29th April, 1999. The Act was enacted by the State of Maharashtra for making a suitable special legislation in the public interest to curb the unscrupulous activities of financial establishment in the State of Maharashtra. The statement and object of the act reads thus :-