Back
2019 Supreme(Bom) 2271
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY AT NAGPUR BENCH
Z.A. Haq, Pushpa V. Ganediwala, JJ.
Avinash - Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra, Represented Through Investigating, Nagpur - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 821 of 2018
Decided On : 20-09-2019
Manohar, Advocate, D.V. Chauhan, Advocate, S.S. Doifode, Advocate, S.B. Tiwari, Advocate
Insufficient evidence to support the charge of abetment and conspiracy against the appellant.
Headnote:
M.P.I.D. Act, 1999 - Framing of Charge - Sections 420, 406, 409, 506, 109, 120, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the M.P.I.D. Act, 1999 and Section 58 of the Reserve Bank of India Act
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was charged with abetting other accused persons in committing various offences related to fraudulent collection of deposits. The appellant contested the charge, claiming innocence and lack of evidence against him.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant's alleged involvement in the fraudulent activities was not supported by sufficient evidence. The court quashed the charge framed against the appellant and discharged him from the crime.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellant was involved in abetting the fraudulent activities and if there was enough evidence to support the charge against him.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that there was insufficient evidence to proceed against the appellant, as he was not directly involved in the fraudulent collection of deposits and the charges of abetment and conspiracy were not supported by the material in the charge-sheet.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the charge framed against the appellant was quashed, and the appellant was discharged from the crime. The amount already deposited and the attached property would remain so until the conclusion of the proceedings.
JUDGMENT
Pushpa V. Ganediwala, J. - Heard Shri Manohar, learned Sr. Counsel for the appellant and Shri Doifode, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent / State and Shri S.B. Tiwari, learned Counsel for one of the depositors.
ADMIT.
2. This is an appeal under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as "M.P.I.D. Act, 1999") challenging the order of framing of charge dated 11/12/2018 against the present appellant.
3. The present appellant-Avinash Ramesh Bhute is shown as accused No. 20 in the charge-sheet which is filed against 30 accused persons which include Directors, Managers, CEO, Business Associates, Members, Employees, Representatives of the financial establishment and persons responsible for the management of or conducting of the business or affairs of M/s. Wasankar Wealth Management Private Limited, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 409, 506 read with Section 109, read with Section 120 and read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the M.P.I.D. Act, 1999 and Section 58 of the Reserve Bank of India Act.
4. Against the present appellant the charge framed at clause ''Six'' is relevant which reads thus :
" 6. Sixthly - That you accused No. 20 during the said period, time and place and in furtherance of common intention of you all abetted the other accused persons in committing the above offences and helped them to dispose off/transferred the amounts of investors with intention not to recover the same and also helped the other accused persons by threatening the depositors for not to lodge the reports against other accused persons and thereby you have committed an offence punishable u/sec. 109 r/w sec. 120-B r/w sec. 34 of the I.P. Code. "
5. Before examining the involvement of the present appellant in the impugned crime, it would be appropriate to cite here the prosecution case in nutshell :
The First Information Report bearing No. 156/2014 dated 09/05/2014 was registered at Police Station Ambazari on the complaint of one Vivek Pathak against the Directors and Managers of M/s. Wasankar Wealth Management Private Limited and Wasankar Investments. Prior to registering the said crime, an inquiry against the accused persons and their financial establishments was conducted during the period between March, 2013 to May, 2014. The prosecution filed first charge-sheet on 24/09/2014 which is followed by five supplementary charge-sheets. The last charge-sheet came to be filed on 09/10/2017 before the Special M.P.I.D. Court.
6. In the impugned charge-sheets, it is alleged that the aforementioned accused persons, during the period between 2008 to 2014 entered into conspiracy and in furtherance of their common intention started various attractive deposit schemes in their Company by assuring higher unrealistic interest rate on their deposits, thereby allured the investors to invest their hard earned savings in their said financial establishments. In this way, the accused have collected large amount of deposits from small investors including the informant on the assurance that they will pay attractive interest on their invested amount, and thereafter fraudulently defaulted the repayment of the said deposits on maturity alongwith the interest accrued as promised.
7. Learned Special Judge while framing charge against the accused persons, in the impugned order observed that it is apparent that the accused acted in conspiracy and in furtherance of their common intention accepted deposits by floating various financial schemes which are commercially not viable and practically impossible in order to allure the depositors. It is also observed that a perusal of the financial schemes which were floated by the accused, apparently would reflect that at the very inception the accused were knowing that the promises could not be fulfilled.
8. The role attributed to the present appellant - Avinash Bhute in the imp
