PRESHIT Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C. for the sake of brevity), the petitioner/accused is praying for quashing and setting aside order dated 8th March 2019 passed below Exhibit 48 in MPID Case No.11 of 2004 by the learned Designated Court under the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the 'MPID Act for the sake of brevity) thereby rejecting his application under Section 265B of the Cr.PC. for plea bargaining.

(2.) Heard. Rule. Heard finally by consent of parties.

(3.) According to the petitioner, who happens to be an accused in MPID Case No.11 of 2004 for offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Sections 3 and 4 of the MPID Act, the learned Designated Court committed an error of law in rejecting his application moved under Section 265-B of Cr.P.C. The petitioner contended that at the instance of investor named Meena Jayant Kulkarni, the crime in question came to be registered and ultimately, on 29th March 2004, the charge-sheet came to be filed against him, he being the Director of M/s.Shivaji Estate Live Stock and Farms Private Limited. It is alleged that the Financial Establishment of which he was a Director, has fraudulently defaulted in repayment of deposits amounting to Rs.2,90,33,107/- collected from 2458 investors. During the course of investigation, immovable properties belonging to said Financial Establishment worth approximately Rs.5,03,67,522/- came to be attached at various places in Maharashtra. The Deputy Collector, Nagpur then came to be appointed as Competent Authority in pursuant to provisions of Section 5 of MPID Act though charge-sheet came to be filed in the City Civil and Sessions Court, Mumbai. The Petitioner further contended that on 30 th April 2012, a statement was made before the learned Designated Court that the petitioner/accused and the co-accused would pay an amount of Rs.35 crores and despite directions of the court, they failed to deposit the said amount within a period of 45 days from 30 th April 2012 as directed by the learned Designated Court. This, according to the learned counsel was despite pendency of trial for more than 15 years there is virtually no progress in the matter. No steps could be taken by the Competent Authority in respect of properties attached in the case. It is pointed out that while deciding Criminal Application bearing No.7 of 2017 on 19 th April 2017, Nagpur Bench of this court had directed the State to issue necessary Notification for appointing the Competent Authority at Mumbai by modification of the Notification dated 27 th April 2005 as investigation was carried out by the Economic Offence Wing of Mumbai Police and charge-sheet was also filed in the Court at Mumbai. Ultimately, in the Official Gazette of 29 th June 2017, the Notification dated 23rd June 2017 came to be published. It was issued in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 4, Section 5 and Section 8 of MPID Act, attaching properties of Financial Establishments as well as properties in the name of the Chairman/Directors of the said establishments, came to be published by recording the satisfaction that the Financial Establishments and its Chairman/Directors are not likely to return the deposits to the depositors.