ANAMIKA REALESTATE PVT LTD Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally.

(2.) The revision-applicants have questioned the conviction recorded by the learned Additional Chief M.M., 40 th Court, Girgaon, Mumbai in C.C. no.1943/S/2003, confirmed in Criminal Appeal no.109 of 2007 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bombay, for an offence under Section 420 r/w. 34 of IPC, sentencing the original accused no.1 to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, original accused no.2 to suffer S.I. till rising of the Court and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default to suffer S.I. for Fifteen days, original accused nos.3 and 4 to suffer S.I. for six months each and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default to suffer S.I. for one month.

(3.) The parties are referred as Complainant and Accused or as Purchaser and Seller. The complainant was interested in investing in immovable property. The accused were known to the complainant. The complainant agreed to book a flat in proposed building "Benzer Tower" at Asha Nagar, Borivali (East), Mumbai, to be constructed by Accused, for an amount of Rs.7,50,000/-. As per the registered agreement dated 12 th January, 1998, accused no.1 was to complete the construction of the building by May,1999, however, it could not be completed. An amount of Rs.50,000/- was paid as earnest. The balance was payable as per the schedule mentioned in Clause 4 of the agreement. The accused did not complete the project. In the middle of September,2003, the complainant caused inquiry in the office of Sub Registrar of Assurances and was shocked to learn that the Accused entered into an agreement with Smt.Annay J.Kancholiya and Shri.Nitin J.Kancholiya, lodged on 20.6.2000 for registration. Flat no.1603 which was agreed to be purchased by the complainant, was sold by the accused to said Smt.Annay and Shri.Nitin. The complainant canvassed that the accused from very inception and with criminal intent wanted to deprive the complainant of his valuable propertythe flat, which was by virtue of the agreement become of ownership. The accused induced the complainant to enter into the said agreement by giving false representations that to complete the agreement as per the terms mentioned therein. There was no fault on the part of the complainant in compliance of its terms, but the accused have frustrated the faith reposed by the complainant. The accused cheated the complainant and identical manner they have induced other purchasers of the flats in the scheme and duped them by selling those flats to others. The money given by the complainant for carrying the construction, has been utilised by the accused for personal expenditure and misappropriated the money given to them.