LAWS(BOM)-2022-1-85

JOHNSON CHRISTOPHER RAICHUR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided On January 20, 2022
Johnson Christopher Raichur Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present applications have been moved by the applicants under Sec. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Crime No. 505 of 2019 registered with Sangli City Police Station, DistrictSangli, for the offences punishable under Ss. 406, 409, 420 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sec. 3, 4 of Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 (MPID Act).

(2.) It is the case of prosecution that the accused Mohanrao Bhalchandra Nimbalkar, Sanjay Bhagwan Bhore and Johnson Christopher Raichur (applicant in BA No. 914/2020) formed and established a company, namely, M/s Food Bird Agro Private Limited, at Laxminagar, Ringroad, Phaltan, District-Satara. The said company advertised about their scheme ' Kadaknath Kombadi Palan ' which was allegedly a scheme of providing 220 Kadaknath chick hens and food medicines and other required material for growing the chicks for around 10 months on depositing Rs.75,000.00 per unit. The prosecution alleges that there was an assurance of purchase of 8500 eggs worth Rs.2,38,000.00 and 120 hens for Rs.38,000.00 within one year. However, as per the schedule if one invested Rs.75,000.00 in the company in one unit in a year, the investor may earn Rs.2,38,000.00 and may get income of Rs.1,75,000.00 The applicant in BA No. 1141 of 2021 was working as Managing Director of the company.

(3.) According to prosecution, the informant purchased two units, total 440 chicks, by paying Rs.1,50,000.00 to the company and upon payment thereof he was supplied 440 chicks as agreed. The company also supplied for food for the initial two months, however, on 10/08/2019 the company stopped providing food for chicks. The informant approached the office of the company at Sangli but found that the office was closed. Even the phone calls were not responded as the same was switched off. The prosecution alleges that the other investors allegedly visited the office and made phone calls but to no avail. The main office of the company at Phaltan was also closed. Thus, the informant felt cheated and accordingly lodged the First Information Report (FIR).