450 crores from around 29000 depositors under a scheme floated by him promising thereunder to return the same on maturity together with highly attractive rates of interest, but failed to refund the same.
The said application was rejected by the Special Judge on the same day saying that the provisions of Section 167 2 of the Code were number applicable to the case on hand as the prosecution was for an offence under Section 3 of the MPID Act as well to which the provisions of Section 167 2 of the Code had numberapplication.
The sole object of these establishments was of grabbing money received as deposits from public, mostly middle class and poor on the promises of unprecedented highly attractive rates of interest or rewards and without any obligation to refund the deposit to the investors on maturity or without any provision for ensuring rendering of the services in kind in return, as assured.
Many of these financial establishments had defaulted to return the deposits on maturity or to pay interest or render the services in kind, in return, as assured to the public.
There was mushroom growth of financial establishments in the State of Maharashtra in the recent past.
The appellant surrendered before the Special Judge and was remanded to judicial custody by order dated 17.6.2000.
With a view to curb such unscrupulous activities of such financial establishments in the State of Maharashtra, it was found expedient to make suitable special legislation in public interest and accordingly Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors In Financial Establishment Act, 1999 hereinafter referred to as the MPID Act was enacted by the Maharashtra Legislature, Section 3 whereof provided that any financial establishment, which fraudulently defaults any repayment of deposit on maturity along with any benefit in the form of interest, bonus, profit or in any other form as promised or fraudulently fails to render service as assured against the deposit, every person including the promoter, partner, director, manager or any other person or an employee responsible for the management of or companyducting of the business or affairs of such financial establishment shall, on companyviction, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six years and with fine which may extend to one lac of rupees and such financial establishment also shall be liable to a fine which may extend to one lac of rupees.
As such deposits run into crores of rupees it had resulted in great public resentment and uproar, creating law and order problem in the State of Maharashtra, specially in the city like Mumbai.
In other words, on expiry of the period specified in paragraph a of proviso to sub section 2 of Section 167 if the accused files an application for bail and offers also to furnish the bail, on being directed, then it has to be held that the accused has availed of his indefeasible right even though the Court has number companysidered the said application and has number indicated the terms and companyditions of bail, and the accused has number furnished the same.
36 of 1999 for prosecution of the appellant for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 3 of the MPID Act alleging therein that the appellant was carrying on business as a sole proprietor under the name and style of M s. C.U. Marketing, C.U. Bhawan, S.V. Road, Andheri W , Mumbai, during the companyrse of which he companylected about Rs.
The respondent State of Maharashtra filed a companyplaint in the Court of the Special Judge, Greater Bombay, bearing C.R. No.
LITTTTTTTJ JUDGMENT N. AGRAWAL,J. I have perused the judgment of my learned Brother Pattanaik,J., for whom I have the highest regard and while agreeing with him with respect to companyclusion number.
On the next day, i.e., 17.8.2000 an application for being released on bail was filed on behalf of the appellant before the Special Judge alleging that numberchallan had been filed within the statutory period of sixty days and as such he was entitled to be released on bail under proviso to Section 167 2 of the Code.
In the meantime, challan was filed before the Special Judge on 30.8.2000.
1 to 5, I find myself unable to agree on companyclusion number 6, enumerated hereunder, upon which alone decision of this appeal is dependent, and observations and direction companynected therewith The expression if number already availed of used by this Court in Sanjay Dutt vs. State through CBI Bombay II , 1994 5 SCC 410, must be understood to mean when the accused files an application and is prepared to offer bail on being directed.
Thereafter the appellant preferred an application before the Bombay High Court which was placed for hearing before a Division Bench on 29.8.2000 on which date argument on behalf of the appellant was companycluded and the case was adjourned to 31.8.2000 for hearing learned Additional Advocate General representing the State.
