Bombay High Court
M/S. Millennium Semiconductors vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 26 July, 2017
Bench: V.K. Tahilramani
jdk 1 12.cr.apeal.570.17.j.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 570 OF 2017
M/s. Millennium Semiconductors, ]
having its registered office at ]
17, 18, 19, 2nd floor, ]
Mahalaxmi Height, ]
Old Mumbai-Pune Highway, Pimpri, ]
Pune - 411 018 ]
Through its authorized signatory ]
Mr. Shahid Shaikh ].. Appellant
[Ori. Applicant]
Vs.
1) The State of Maharashtra ]
through the Public Prosecutor, ]
High Court, Bombay. ]
]
2) The Senior Inspector of Police, ]
Economic Offence Wing, ]
Unit - VII, Mumbai ].. Respondents
....
Mr. Yashodeep Deshmukh Advocate i/b Ms. Rachana K. Divekar
Advocate for Appellant
Mr. H.J. Dedhia A.P.P. for the State
....
CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI AND
SANDEEP K.SHINDE, JJ.
DATED : JULY 26, 2017
ORAL JUDGMENT [PER SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. ] :
1 of 7
jdk 2 12.cr.apeal.570.17.j.doc
1 Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2 This appeal is directed against the order dated
19.5.2016 passed by the Special Judge, MPID Act and Additional
Sessions Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court, Greater Mumbai
in Misc. Application 35 of 2016 and connected application in
C.R.No. 83 of 2015 of E.O.W., Mumbai, Unit-VII. By the said
order the appellant was directed to deposit Rs. 23.50 lakhs
which was received by the appellant by way of security
deposit / premium in relation to the premises leased out by the
appellant to the accused / financial establishment.
3 Admittedly, the appellant is the owner of immovable
property situated at Mahalaxmi Height, Old Mumbai-Pune
Highway, Morwadi, Pimpri - 411018, Dist. Pune. This property
was given on leave and licence to the accused in CR No. 83
of 2015. The said property was attached by E.O.W, hence,
the appellant approached the Special Court on various grounds
to set aside the attachment. It was submitted that the property
did not belong to the accused / financial establishment
2 of 7
jdk 3 12.cr.apeal.570.17.j.doc
but it belonged to the appellant and was given to the accused /
financial establishment by way of leave and licence agreement
and the accused / financial establishment had no right, title or
interest in the property.
4 The Special Judge held that the attachment was
illegal, however, the said Court directed the appellant to deposit
Rs. 23.50 lakhs received by the appellant from the accused /
financial establishment towards premium or security deposit in
relation to the lease agreement of the said premises. Being
aggrieved by this order directing the appellant to deposit
Rs.23.50 lakhs which they had received towards security
deposit, this appeal has been filed.
5 The leave and licence agreement has been annexed
to the appeal. In the leave and licence agreement, it is clearly
mentioned that the security deposit amounting to Rs. 23.50
lakhs was paid to the appellant vide cheque no. 119709 dated
19.6.2013 drawn on Indusind and cheque no. 260743 dated
30.8.2013 drawn on ING Bank. It is an admitted fact that this
amount was received by the appellant from the accused /
3 of 7
jdk 4 12.cr.apeal.570.17.j.doc
financial establishment. The investigation in this case shows
that there was no other business of the accused / financial
establishment other than the receiving the amounts from the
depositors and as such, the amount of premium which was paid
to the appellant is out of crime proceeds. It is not disputed by
the prosecution that the appellant is the owner of the said
property nor have they disputed that the property was given to
the accused / financial establishment on leave and licence
basis. But it is their stand that the amount of Rs.23.50 lakhs
which was received by the appellant was out of the crime
proceeds and it was a malafide transfer, hence, they sought
direction that the amount which was received by the appellant
by way of premium / security deposit be deposited in the Court.
It is also not disputed that the appellant has received the
amount of Rs.23.50 lakhs by way of premium / security deposit.
The stand of the Investigating Officer for attaching the property
was that the movable property of the accused persons was kept
inside the said premises, hence, for protection of that movable
property which was inside the premises of the appellant, he
attached the said property. As stated earlier, the learned
Special Judge has held that this attachment was illegal and
4 of 7
jdk 5 12.cr.apeal.570.17.j.doc
directed the Investigating Officer to remove the movable
articles belonging to the accused / financial establishment from
the said premises and to hand over the possession of the
property to the appellant and accordingly, the premises was
handed over to the appellant.
6 The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that
the accused / financial establishment had not paid 9 months'
rent to the appellant, hence, it is entitled to forfeit the premium
/ security deposit. It was further stated that the appellant has
paid the electricity bills amounting to Rs.2,15,510/- as well as
the other bills. He submitted that the amount to be paid
towards the electric bills is a statutory liability. This amount
was not paid by the accused / financial establishment, hence,
the appellant had to pay for the same, in such case, the
appellant was entitled to retain the security amount of Rs.23.50
lakhs. In addition, leave and licence agreement was entered
into in good faith and it was not a case of malafide transfer and
in such case, the appellant should be allowed to retain the
amount of Rs.23.50 lakhs.
5 of 7
jdk 6 12.cr.apeal.570.17.j.doc
7 According to the investigating agency, the amount of
premium / security deposit which was transferred by the
accused to the appellant is out of the crime proceeds i.e. the
depositors' amount and as per Section 8 of the Maharashtra
Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments)
Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as "MPID Act") malafide
transfer is prohibited. Transfer of crime proceeds by the
accused to the appellant is a malafide transfer and it is
prohibited under Section 8 of the MPID Act wherein the
bonafides or good faith of the transferee would have no role to
play. The transfer of the crime proceeds i.e. the amount of the
depositors to the appellant even though the appellant was not
aware of the fact that the amount received by them is out of
crime proceeds, cannot be said to be a bonafide transfer.
Under Section 8 of the MPID Act, the act of the accused /
financial establishment is to be seen to ascertain the malafide
transfer and not the bonafides or good faith of the transferee.
As stated earlier, the accused / financial establishment had no
other business excepting the receiving of amounts from the
depositors as such, this amount pertains to crime proceeds,
hence, the appellant cannot be allowed to retain the same and
6 of 7
jdk 7 12.cr.apeal.570.17.j.doc
the order of Special Judge directing the appellant to deposit the
amount of Rs.23.50 lakhs, cannot be faulted.
8 In view of the above, we find no merit in the appeal
and the appeal is dismissed.
[ SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J. ] [ SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]
kandarkar
7 of 7
