JUDGMENT :

N.J. Jamadar, J.

A question of seminal importance is raised in this petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India and section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973, namely, whether the inter-corporate deposit/loan, i.e., a loan advanced / deposit made by a company with another company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act,1956 would amount to a "deposit" within the meaning and for the purpose of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act,1999 (Act No.XVI,2000) (hereinafter referred to as 'the MPID Act').

2. The aforesaid question crops up for consideration in the backdrop of the following facts and the challenge raised in the petition :-

(a) Birla Power Solutions Ltd. is a public listed company, registered under the Companies Act,1956. It was initially registered as 'Birla Yamaha Ltd.'. During the period 2009 to 2013, the company had accepted the deposits; including a deposit of Rs.1 crore from Shri Hajarimal Somani Memorial Trust, on 9th March 2012 to be repaid along with interest @ 10.75 % per annum. The date of maturity was 8th March 2013. The Company committed default in repayment of the said amount along with interest. It is alleged that the Company had accepted deposits from thousands of investors, including the companies. Hence, Shri Bhagwan Suryakant Seth lodged a first information report against the Company and its Chairman, Managing Director and other Directors for the offences punishable under sections 409, 420, 477(A), 120(B) of Indian Penal Code,1860 and section 3 of MPID Act. The petitioner is arraigned as accused No.11 therein. The investigation came to be transferred to Economic Offences Wing, Unit 4 and the crime was registered as C.R. No.168 of 2013. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet came to be lodged on 29th March 2014, followed by a supplementary charge-sheet on 21st December 2016. MPID Special Case No.4 of 2014 is pending before the Special Court.

(b) In the meanwhile, two attachment orders dated 19th March 2016 and 24th November 2016 have been issued by the State in exercise of the powers under sections 4,8 and 12 of the MPID Act and various properties of the said company and other related and unrelated companies have been attached. Pursuant to the orders of the Court, forensic audit in relation to money and/or amount accepted by the said company has been conducted. The forensic audit report came to be submitted on 14th December 2017. The said report, inter-alia, contains the executive summary of the outstanding dues of the said company as under :-

(c) In the light of the aforesaid facts, the petitioner asserts that the inter-corporate deposit/loan, indicated above, do not fall within the scope and ambit of MPID Act. The said challenge rests on the premise that inter-corporate deposits or loans are essentially loans procured by the one corporate entity from another corporate entity registered under the Companies Act in the nature of short-term finance.

(d) The petitioner contends that the inter-corporate deposits are governed by and regulated under the provisions of the Companies Act and the Rules framed there under. On the one hand, the definition of 'deposit' under section 2(c) of the MPID Act, if properly construed, in the light of the avowed object of the MPID Act excludes from its purview the intercorporate deposits. On the other hand, the definition of 'deposit' provided in Rule 2(1)(c)(vi) of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules,2014 explici