Bombay High Court
Ashok Trikamchand Bajaj vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 7 February, 2019
Author: A.M.Badar
Bench: A.M.Badar
(4)APEALNo.8422015.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.842 OF 2015
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.277 OF 2017
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.842 OF 2015
Ashok Trikamchand Bajaj ... Appellant/Applicant
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ... Respondents
.....
Ms.Manjula Rao with Ms.Sangeeta Khalige with Mr.Ashokkumar
Dubey i/b. Savj Law Solutions, Advocate for the
Appellant/Applicant.
Mr.S.V.Gavand, APP for the Respondent/State.
Mr.C.H.Mehta, Advocate for the Respondent No.3.
Mr.Monel M. Thakkar, Advocate for the Respondent No.4.
....
CORAM : A.M.BADAR J.
DATED : 7th FEBRUARY 2019.
P.C. :
1 This appeal is directed against the Order dated
25/06/2015 passed by the learned Special Judge MPID Act,
Sessions Court at Mumbai allowing with the application under
Section 8 of the (The Maharashtra Protection of Interest of
Gaikwad RD 1/3
::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2019 04:36:57 :::
(4)APEALNo.8422015.doc
Depositors (in Financial Establishment) Act (hereinafter referred
to as 'MPID Act' for the sake of brevity) preferred by the
competent Authority appointed under Section 5 of the MPID Act.
By the said application, direction was sought against the present
appellant, who happed to be creditor of the original accused.
2 Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the
appellant/original debtor of the accused, who was impleaded as
the respondent in the application under Section 8 of the MPID Act.
She argued that the entire amount due and payable to the accused
was paid by the appellant to the persons and forum as directed by
the accused. The accused has accepted this fact and acknowledged
in writing that creditors of the accused are paid by the appellant in
pursuant to the directions of the accused. The learned Counsel
further argued that it was the duty of the Investigating Officer to
ascertain from creditors of the accused as to whether this amount
was paid to them for and on behalf of accused by the present
appellant. This was not done by the Investigating Officer and the
learned Special Judge has erroneously directed the appellant to
deposit the amount of Rs.94,90,000/- plus interest.
3 I have also heard the learned Counsel for the
respondent No.3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor
appears for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Gaikwad RD 2/3
::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2019 04:36:57 :::
(4)APEALNo.8422015.doc
4 Perused the impugned Order passed by the learned
Special judge under Section 8 of the MPID Act.
5 The appeal is already admitted.
6 The prayer for stay to the impugned Order is
analogous to a prayer for stay of money decree. Even otherwise,
Section 9 of the MPID Act adequately protects the appellant in this
regard. Undisputedly, the appellant was owing an amount of
Rs.94,90,000/- to the accused. Stand of the appellant that he had
made payment of the said amount to the third party at the
instance of the accused had not found favour with the learned
Special Judge for the reasons stated in the impugned order. One
of that reason is to the effect that no books of account and
balance-sheet are produced before the learned Special Judge by
the appellant to show that such a huge amount of debt owed by
him to the accused was paid by him under instructions of the
accused to third parties.
7 In this view of the matter, I am not inclined to grant
stay. Hence, the Order
ORDER
Prayer for stay is rejected.
(A.M.BADAR J.) Gaikwad RD 3/3 ::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2019 04:36:57 :::