8. cri apeal 252-17.doc
RMA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 252 OF 2017
Subhash B. Sanas .. Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents
...................
Appearances
Mr. Karan Mehta a/w
Mr. Prashant Patil i/by
Mr. Sudhakar Surve Advocate for the Appellant
Mr. H.J. Dedhia APP for the State
...................
CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI &
M.S. KARNIK, JJ.
DATE : APRIL 20, 2017.
ORAL ORDER [PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] :
1. Heard the leaned counsel for the appellant and learned APP for EOW as well as Competent Authority.
2. This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 17.1.2017 passed by the Designated Court under the MPID. Act [Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishment) Act, 2005 ] in Misc. Application No. jfoanz vkacsjdj 1 of 5 ::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2017 00:03:31 :::
8. cri apeal 252-17.doc 250 of 2005 in MPID Special Case No. 39 of 2000. The appellant was the non-applicant in the said application. In the said application, the competent authority has sought clarification regarding disposal of property at Sr. No. 2 of the notification published by the Government under Section 4 of the MPID Act. The description of the property is as under:-
Flat No. 302, Beverly Hills Building No. 1, Lulla Nagar, Pune admeasuring 1622 sq.ft.
3. In the said application, the appellant contended that the property was owned by him in pursuance to an unregistered agreement to sell dated 27.1.1997 with accused Rajiv John and Rosslyn John. The appellant is the developer and promoter and he had entered into an agreement to sell in respect of the said property for a total consideration of Rs. 14,59,800/-. As per the competent authority, only Rs. Seven Lacs were paid by the accused to the appellant. It is the case of the prosecution that the amount was paid by the accused persons to the appellant from the amount which was deposited by the depositors.
jfoanz vkacsjdj 2 of 5
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2017 00:03:31 :::
8. cri apeal 252-17.doc
4. The records relating to this case show that the State Government attached in all seven immovable properties and nine movable properties mentioned in the notification under Section 4 of the MPID Act. The order of the Government dated 12.2.2004 under Section 4 of the MPID Act bearing No. CH-10/2001 / 574/POL -12 is also notified in the official gazette dated 18.3.2004. The trial Court by order dated 17.1.2005 had already passed the order under Section 7 of the MPID Act and thereby, the order of attachment of the properties by the Government under Section 4 of the MPID Act was made absolute in respect of the attached and notified properties including the property which is the subject matter of this appeal.
5. Before the trial Court, the appellant had contended that he was not aware of the order passed by the Government or the order passed by the Designated Court dated 17.1.2005 and that no notices were issued to him under Section 7 of the MPID Act, hence, the said property may be released from jfoanz vkacsjdj 3 of 5 ::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2017 00:03:31 :::
8. cri apeal 252-17.doc attachment. The trial Court observed that the contention of the non-applicant that he was not aware of the order passed by the Government or the order passed by the Designated Court dated 17.1.2005 and that no notices were issued to him under Section 7 of the MPID Act may be correct. However, the Designated Court observed that there is no provision under the MPID Act of review of the order passed by the same Designated Court and the only recourse available to the non-applicant (appellant herein) is to file an Appeal under Section 11 of the MPID Act. In view of these facts, the Designated Court observed that neither the contention of the competent authority for soliciting further directions nor the contention of non-applicant of release of the property from attachment can be considered by the Designated Court. Observing thus, the Designated Court under the MPID Act rejected the application.
6. Thus, it is seen that the Designated Court under the MPID Act did not deny that the present appellant was not jfoanz vkacsjdj 4 of 5 ::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2017 00:03:31 :::
8. cri apeal 252-17.doc aware of the order passed by the Government or the order passed by the Designated Court dated 17.1.2005 and that no notices were issued to him under Section 7 of the MPID Act. We are of the opinion that one chance ought to be given to the appellant to be heard before the orders are passed in relation to the property at Sr. No. 2. In view of the above facts, we set aside the order dated 17.1.2017 as well as order dated 17.1.2005 in relation to property at Sr. No. 2 of the notification. The appellant is at liberty to file appropriate proceedings before the Designated Court for release of the said property from attachment.
7. The Designated Court after hearing the present appellant as well as the necessary parties to decide the same in accordance with law.
8. The appeal is allowed in the above terms.
[ M.S. KARNIK, J. ] [ SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. ]
jfoanz vkacsjdj 5 of 5
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2017 00:03:31 :::