PRABHAKAR KHODGE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant has preferred Criminal Appeal No.653 of 2019 challenging the Judgment and order dated 28.06.2019 passed by the Special Judge (under MPID Act), Aurangabad in Special Case (MPID) Case No.1 of 2016.

(2.) The Special Judge, in the aforesaid Sessions case, has convicted the applicant for the offences punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) as well as under Section 3 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as 'the MPID Act'). The maximum sentence imposed upon the applicant is of seven years rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC. He has also been subjected to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC as well as for the offence punishable under Section 3 of the MPID Act.

(3.) Shri Abhishek Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that considering the evidence on record, no offence either of cheating or under Section 3 of the MPID Act, can be said to have been made out against the applicant. The learned counsel submitted that during the investigation, no such incriminating material has been received by the Investigating Officer so as to attract the offences alleged against him. The learned counsel pointed out that the amounts were allegedly given to the applicant for investing the same in the share market, however, in that regard, the evidence which has been collected is wholly insufficient to convict the applicant for the said offence. The learned counsel submitted that the applicant is behind the bars since 24.03.2015. The learned counsel submitted that the applicant has undergone more than half of the sentence imposed upon him. The learned counsel submitted that, having regard to the fact that the sentence imposed upon the applicant is a short term sentence, out of which he has already undergone half of the said period and taking into account further fact that the appeal filed by the applicant is not likely to be heard in near future considering the pendency of the old appeals, the applicant needs to be released on bail by suspending the execution of the sentence imposed upon him.