Bombay High Court
Boney Kapoor vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 10 November, 2025
Author: Bharati Dangre
Bench: Bharati Dangre
2025:BHC-AS:48832-DB
1/4 904 APEAL-255-21.odt
Salgaonkar
MANDIRA MILIND
SALGAONKAR
Digitally signed by MANDIRA
MILIND SALGAONKAR
Date: 2025.11.14 14:49:34
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
+0530
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.255 OF 2021
Boney Kapoor .. Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents
...
Mr.Bhavesh Parmar with Ms.Reshma Nair, Mr.Rahul Gaikwad
and Mr.Rajesh Sahani i/b Devmani Shukla for the Appellant.
Ms.Sangeeta D. Shinde, A.P.P. for the State/Respondent.
CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE &
SHYAM C. CHANDAK, JJ.
DATE : 10th NOVEMBER, 2025
...
P.C:-
1. Learned counsel for the Appellant has placed before us
the Judgment delivered by the Designated Court under MPID
Act in MPID Special Case No.03 of 2003, which tried Mrs.-
Bhavana Ajay Thakkar, accused No.2, as her husband, Ajay
Amrutlal Thakkar, accused No.1 had already demised, for the
offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 114 of IPC and
Sections 3 and 4 of MPID Act, 1999.
On culmination of the trial, the prosecution case being
placed before the Court by alleging that the accused persons
had formed an financial institution and accepted deposits from
2/4 904 APEAL-255-21.odt
the general public, promising them higher returns and when
the complainant alongwith others invested huge amount, there
was a default in keeping with the promise, which included
payment of interest on their invested money. This resulted in
registration of an offence in which investigation was conducted
by the Crime Branch, C.I.D. and the accused were charged for
playing a fraud to the tune of Rs.57.70 crores and the
investigation resulted in seizure of property valued to Rs.1.27
crores, to be used for realizing the due of the investors.
2. The prosecution lead its case through three witnesses
and the Special MPID Court was confronted with the issue as
to whether the prosecution proved that Accused Nos.1 and 2
hatched conspiracy wherein they accepted money from
depositors promising good returns, by forming a financial
institution and fraudulently made defaults in repayment of
deposits on maturity alongwith the agreed interest. On the
evidence being led before the Court, a conclusion was drawn
that the evidence lead by the prosecution was not sufficient to
establish that accused-Bhavana Thakkar was the promoter,
partner, director, manager responsible for the management of
or conducting of the business or affairs of the financial
institution and even there was no material to show that she
had promised any specified service against the said deposit,
with an intention of causing wrongful gain for herself and to
cause wrongful loss to the depositors. A conclusion was also
derived that she never promised higher returns, and never
made false and wrongful representation with an intention to
deceive the investors.
3/4 904 APEAL-255-21.odt
In the wake of the aforesaid, she stood acquitted of the
offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 114 of IPC as
well as under Sections 3 and 4 of MPID Act.
The Judgment in Special Case No.03 of 2003 is taken on
record and marked 'X' for identification.
3. As far as the Appellant is concerned, he is the non-
applicant and the competent authority filed an application
under Section 8 of the MPID Act before the Designated Court
against the non-applicant, being Narsimha Enterprises,
borrower of the accused, to deposit the amount of
Rs.31,00,000/-.
The application was contested by the applicant, but
recording that the non-applicant shall secure certain amount,
which is due to be paid by the accused persons to the investors,
though it was found that an amount of Rs.29,00,000/-, which
was already directed to be deposited, was so deposited sans the
interest and by the impugned order dated 21/02/2020, he was
directed to make payment of simple interest at the rate of 18%
p.a. on the sum of Rs.29,00,000/- w.e.f. 01/04/2001 till
27/12/2019 within a period of two months.
The direction to deposit the amount of Rs.29,00,000/-
was based on the premise that the non-applicant had borrowed
Rs.29,00,000/- from deceased Ajay Thakkar and his firms and
the same was confirmed from his Profit & Loss account for the
year ending 31/03/2001, which is filed by the non-applicant.
Despite the specific stand taken by the non-applicant that the
said loan was adjusted by handing over his Mercedes Benz Car
to Mr.Nalin Choksi, who was entitled to receive Rs.29,00,000/-
4/4 904 APEAL-255-21.odt
from Ajay Thakkar, the Court deemed it appropriate to direct
the deposit of the amount, with the interest.
It is this order, which is the subject matter of the Appeal
before us.
4. In the wake of the Judgment delivered by the Designated
Court in the MPID Special Case No.03 of 2003, acquitting
Accused No.2 of the charges faced by her, including the charge
under Sections 3 and 4 of the MPID Act, as far as the deposit of
amount of Rs.29,00,000/- is concerned, that will of-course
subject to the directions issued in the Judgment dated
13/05/2025, as while acquitting Accused No.2, the learned
Special Judge had directed the Investigating Officer and the
Competent Authority to make necessary compliance in view of
disbursement of deposit amount of unpaid investors/
depositors and their legal heirs.
In any case, at this stage, no liability can be fastened
upon the Appellant, as the main accused has been acquitted
and in any case, the Appellant has not abided by the directions
issued under the impugned order of deposit of interest, as
directed and we shall clarify that in the wake of the Judgment,
he is no longer liable to make the payment of interest.
In the wake of the aforesaid, since the Appeal now
deserves a disposal subject to the directions in the Judgment
dated 13/05/2025 i.e. as far as adjusting the amount of
Rs.29,00,000/-, which is already deposited, the Appeal is
disposed of.
(SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.) (BHARATI DANGRE, J.)
