Subhash B. Sanas vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2017 Latest Caselaw 1870 Bom

                                                                                  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

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





                                                           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

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

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