Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
SARANG V. KOTWAL, S. M. MODAK, JJ.
Anuj Jagdish Saxena – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
PC :
1. The Appellant has challenged the order dated 09.01.2025 passed below Exhibit-30 in MPID Special Case No.1300 of 2021 by the learned Designated Judge under The Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors Act, 1999, for Greater Bombay. Vide the impugned order, the Appellant’s discharge application was rejected. Brief background of the case as is reflected from the F.I.R. and the consequent charge-sheet is as follows:
The F.I.R. was lodged vide C.R.No.263 of 2015 on 05.09.2015 at Amboli police station, under sections 420 and 120B of the I.P.C. and U/s.3 and 4 of the The Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 (for short ‘MPID Act’). The investigation was subsequently taken over by the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) vide registering their own F.I.R. vide C.R.No.52 of 2015. The F.I.R. was lodged by one Rajiv Mehta on 05.09.2015. He has stated in his F.I.R. that, he was working as a Chartered Accountant. In February 2012, he received a phone call from a finance company. The informant was asked whether he was interested in making investment. The caller suggested that, he could invest in a couple of companies. One of them
Individuals associated with a company can be prosecuted for fraud if evidence shows their active role and intent, regardless of the company's status as an accused.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the investments made in the case fell within the definition of 'deposit' under section 2(c)(i) of the MPID Act, and that the accused had commi....
Entrustment of investor funds creates a basis for criminal breach of trust allegations; economic offences involving large-scale fraud necessitate close scrutiny and denial of bail.
Applicants misrepresented loan transactions, which did not constitute 'deposits' under the MPID Act, thus the FIR was partially quashed.
The prosecution must prove fraudulent intent and misappropriation to establish liability under the TPID Act; mere breach of contract is a civil dispute, not a criminal offence.
The main legal point established is that the proper maintenance of ledger accounts and absence of evidence of inducement of investors can be considered in granting bail in financial fraud cases.
The applicants' actions of obtaining loans in farmers' names do not constitute deposits or fall under the MPID Act, justifying their discharge from related charges.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
