1. This proceeding is filed for relief of quashing of the case filed in Crime No. 110/2015 which was registered with Police Station, Nilanga, District Latur. Though initially relief was claimed in respect of the entire case, the order of this Court dated 28.09.2017 shows that learned counsel for the applicants restricted the claim, relief only to the extent of allegations against the applicants in relation of Section 3 of Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 (hereinafter, in short, referred as “MPID Act”). Both the sides are heard.

2. Present applicants are the Directors of Kolpe Patil Multi-State Cooperative Society Ltd., Pune. It is contended that the Institution is registered under Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 and also under Banking Regulation Act, 1949. For the restricted relief, it is contention of the applicants that their Institution does not fall under the definition of “Financial Establishment” given in Section 2 (d) of MPID Act, and so, the prosecution under Section 3 of the said Act is not possible. On this point, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the definition of “Banking Company” given in Section 5 (c) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 needs to be seen and the circumstance that the Institution of the applicant is doing banking business needs to be kept in mind. He also took this Court through the definition given in Section 3 (f) of Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002. The learned counsel submitted that in view of these provisions, the case filed against the applicants for the offence punishable under Section 3 of the MPID Act needs to be quashed and set aside. He took this Court through the rules also and he placed reliance on some observations made by Apex Court in the case reported as K.K. Baskaran vs. State Rep. by its Secretary, Tamil Nadu and Others, AIR 2011 SC 1485. This Court has carefully gone through the observations made by the Apex Court and the point involved. There was challenge to Tamil Nadu protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1997. The Apex Court considered the provisions of MPID Act by observing that the provisions of MPID Act are paramateria similar to the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act and laid down that the Act was not ultra virus the constitution, said Tamil Nadu Act was constitutionally valid.

3. In Section 3 of MPID Act, the institutions covered by the Act are mentioned. The provision is as under:

“3. Any Financial Establishment, which fraudulently defaults any repayment of deposit on maturity alongwith 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 conducting of the business or affaires of such Financial Establishment shall, on conviction, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six years and with fine which may extend to one lax of rupees and such Financial Establishment also shall liable for a fine which may extend to one lax of rupees.”

Learned A.P.P. placed reliance on the decision given by Apex Court reported as Soma Suresh Kumar vs. Government of A.P. and Others, AIR 2013 SC (Supp) 816. The observations made by the Apex Court and the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Act quoted show that this Act is also paramateria similar to MPID. The definition of “Financial Establishment” given in Andhra Pradesh Act is similar to the definition given in Maharashtra Act. The Apex Court made it clear in para no. 10 of the Judgment by referring the decision given by Full Bench of Bombay High Court that some differences were there in Tamil Nadu Act and Maharashtra Act, but there were minor differences and same view was taken in respect of Andhra Pradesh Act and Maharashtra Act. The view taken by Bombay High Cour