Shahaji Yashwant Salgar vs The State Of Maharashtra on 2 December, 2022

[Cites 9, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Shahaji Yashwant Salgar vs The State Of Maharashtra on 2 December, 2022

Bench: Sarang V. Kotwal

:1: 9.apeal-727-22.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 727 OF 2022

Shahaji Yashwant Salgar .... Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent
______
Mr. Vikrant V. Phatate, Advocate for the Appellant.
Mr. S. R. Agarkar, APP for the Respondent-State.
______

CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.

DATE : 02nd DECEMBER, 2022

P.C. :

1. The appellant has challenged the order dated

20.06.2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur in

Criminal Misc. Application No.82/2018.

2. Heard Shri Vikrant Phatate, learned counsel for the

appellant and Shri S. R. Agarkar, learned APP for the State.

3. The contention of the appellant in this appeal is that

the said order was passed by the Additional Sessions Judge,

Solapur in his capacity as the Judge in-charge of the matters

under the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in
1 of 5

Deshmane(PS)
:2: 9.apeal-727-22.odt

Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 (for short, 'MPID Act'). The

case of appellant is that he is the registered owner of the

property situated at 3rd floor, Shriyash Heights, at Survey

No.721A, having built sup area 823 sq. ft. at South Kasba,

Solapur. He had entered into the leave and license agreement

with M/s. Thiripura Chits Private limited represented by one

Sunil Revanshidha Hiraje. The leave and license agreement was

executed on 5.10.2016 for a period of thirty six months.

4. After that C.R.No.133/2018 was registered against

Sunil Hiraje and others under Sections 406, 420 read with 34 of

the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 & 4 of the MPID

Act. Pursuant to the registration of the F.I.R., the investigation

started and the investigating agency attached that property.

The appellant preferred the aforementioned Criminal Misc.

Application No.82/2018 before the trial Court challenging

attachment of said property.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the

attachment of the property is completely illegal. The

investigating agency has no authority to attach any immovable
2 of 5
:3: 9.apeal-727-22.odt

property under the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure,

1973. He relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in the case of Nevada Properties Private Limited, through its

Directors Vs. State of Maharashtra and another 1 as well as the

judgment of Full Bench of this Court in the case of Sudhir

Vasant Karnataki Vs. State of Maharashtra and others2. He

submitted that even the provisions of the MPID Act from

Section 4 onwards for attachment of property were not

followed and, therefore, sealing and attachment of the aforesaid

property is completely illegal.

6. Learned APP filed an affidavit of the Police Inspector

Shri Chandrakant Wable as per directions of this Court. This

Court had directed the investigating agency to justify their

action by relying on provisions of law.

7. I have perused the affidavit-in-reply. In the entire

reply no provisions of law was mentioned which enabled the

investigating agency to attach immovable property. There is no

1 (2019) 20 SCC 119

2 2011 ALL MR (Cri) 96 [FULL BENCH]
3 of 5
:4: 9.apeal-727-22.odt

reference to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

and this Court in the aforementioned decisions. The only

contention raised is that the appellant is not entitled to get

possession of the property under Section 457 of the Cr.P.C.

8. Learned APP also could not point out any provision

under any law enabling the investigating agency to attach the

appellant's property in the present circumstances.

9. Considering this position, it is clear that the

investigating agency was not empowered to attach the

immovable property under the provisions of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973. There is nothing to show that the

provisions under the MPID Act, particularly those under

Sections 4, 7, 8, 9 or 10 were followed in any manner.

10. In this view of matter, the action of the part of the

investigating agency to attach the appellant's property, which is

the subject matter of this appeal, is completely unjustified and

unsupported by any provision of law. It is an admitted position

that the appellant is not involved in the offence. Therefore, the

4 of 5
:5: 9.apeal-727-22.odt

appeal deserves to be allowed to that extent. Hence, the

following order :

:: O R D E R :

i. The attachment of the appellant's property which is described as situated at 3rd floor, Shriyash Heights, at Survey No.721A, having built sup area 823 sq. ft. at South Kasba, Solapur, is declared as illegal.

ii. The investigating agency shall immediately remove attachment on that property. It is made clear that the appellant as well as the investigating agency are free to take further steps in accordance with law.

iii. Criminal Appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

Digitally signed

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) by PRADIPKUMAR PRADIPKUMAR PRAKASHRAO PRAKASHRAO DESHMANE DESHMANE Date:

2022.12.06 17:51:50 +0530 Deshmane (PS) 5 of 5

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Bombay High Court