Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Bom) 903

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BHARATI DANGRE, MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ.
Roop Kishor Bhootra - Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Another - Respondents
Criminal Appeal Nos. 461, 462, 664, 665, 666, 667, 668, 669, 679, 681, 682, 683, 684, 884, 1155 of 2023, Interim Application Nos. 1770, 1771, 1772, 1774, 1775, 1776, 1777, 1819, 1821, 1822 of 2023
Decided On : 07-02-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
Mr.Amit Desai, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Gopalakrishna Shenoy, Mr.Vaibhav Singh, Ms. Radhika Indapurkar, Mr.Bryan Pillai, Mr. Manas Kotak, Mr. Dhruv Dandekar, Mr. Pranav Chandhoke i/by. Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co. for Appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 461/2023. Mr. Pranav Badheka, Sr. Advocate a/w. Mr. Prashant Pawar, Vaibhav Singh, Ms. Radhika Indapurkar, Mr.Bryan Pillai, Mr. Manas Kotak, Dhruv Dandekar, Pranav Chandhoke i/b Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co. for appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 462/2023. Mr. Prashant Pawar, Advocate for Intervenor in IA No. 1770/2023, IA No.1771/2023, IA No.1772/2023, IA 1774/2023 and IA 1775/2023 and IA 1776/2023. Mr. Vaibhav Singh a/w. Ms. Radhika Indapurkar, Mr. Bryan Pillai, Mr. Manas Kotak, Mr. Dhruv Dandekar, Mr. Pranav Chandhoke i/b Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co. for applicant in Interim Application No. 1826/2023 in Criminal Appeal No. 461/2023. Mr. Prateek Seksaria, Senior Advocate i/b Prashant Pawar, for Intervenor in IA No.1777/2023 in Criminal Appeal No.462/2023. Mr.Amit Desai, Sr.Advocate a/w Mr. Mihir Gheewala a/w. Mr. Vikrant Singh Negi, Ms. Ekta Tyagi, Ms.Sneha Barange, Ms.Priyamvada Singhania, Mr.Gopalakrishna Shenoy, Sneha Barange i/b. DSK Legal for appellant in Appeal Nos.679/2023 & 681/2023. Mr.Raja Thakare, Senior Adv. a/w. Mr. Mihir Gheewala, Mr. Vikrant Singh Negi, Ms. Ekta Tyagi, Ms. Sneha Barange, Ms.Priyamvada Singhania, Mr. Siddharth Jagushte i/b. DSK Legal for Appellant in Appeal 682/2023 & 683/2023. Mr.Aditya Mehta for Applicant in Interim Application No.1819/ 2023, 1821/2023 & 1822/2023. Mr. Mihir Gheewala a/w Aditya Mehta, Farhad Panthaki Rishabh Botadra i/b Santosh Pawar for Appellant in Appeal 684/2023. Mr. Aabad Ponda Sr.Advocate, Arvind Lakhawat, Javed Dhorajiwala, Nimeet Sharma, Vinit Vaidya, Jalpa Shah, Himani Narula i/b. MZM Legal LLP for Respondent No.2 in Appeal No.461/2023. Mr.Arvind Lakhawat a/w Mr.Javed Dhorajiwala with Mr.Nimeet Sharma, Mr. Vinit Vaidya, Ms.Jalpa Shah & Ms. Himani Narula i/b. MZM Legal LLP for Respondent No.1 in Appeal No.1155 /2023 and for respondent no.2 in Appeal 667/2023, 669/2023, 665/2023, 681/2023, 683/2023 and 684/2023. Mr.Rajiv Chavan, Sr. Advocate i/b. Mr.Gaurav Parkar for Respondent No.2 in Appeal no. 462/2023, 664/2023, 666/2023, 668/2023, 679/2023, 682/2023. Mr. Manoj Mohite, Senior Advocate a/w Mr.Nimeet Sharma,Ms. Jalpa Shah, Mr. Vinit Vaidya, Mr.Javed Dhorajiwala, i/b MZM Legal LLP, for the respondent no.1 in Criminal Appeal No.884 of 2023. Mr. Avinash B. Avhad, Spl. Public Prosecutor a/w. Mr. Mahesh V. Rawool a/w. Mr. Sachin D. Gawade, Mr. Sahil S. Ghule a/w. Mr. J.P. Yagnik, Addl. P.P. and Dr. Ashvini A. Takalkar, APP, for State in all other Appeals. Sr. PI Prakash Bagal (EOW) present.

The Special Court can summon additional accused based on available evidence, even if they are not named in the charge-sheet, and an accused has the locus to file such an application.

Headnote:
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 120B, 409, 465, 468, 471, 474, 477A - Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 - Sections 3 and 4 - Complaint filed against Directors of National Spot Exchange Limited for misappropriation and criminal breach of trust involving Rs. 202 lakhs - Allegations of false warehouse receipts and misuse of Settlement Guarantee Fund - Special Court's orders challenged regarding cognizance of offences against promoters and directors of financial establishments. (Paras 1-5, 12-14)

(B) Jurisdiction of Special Court - The Special Judge has the authority to take cognizance of offences without the case being committed to it, and can summon additional accused based on material available, even if they are not named in the charge-sheet. (Paras 41-60)

(C) Locus Standi - An accused can file an application under Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to summon other accused, as the court has a duty to ensure all offenders are brought to trial. (Paras 61-80)

Facts of the case:
The case involves a complaint filed by a director of a financial establishment against other directors and trading members for misappropriation of funds and fraudulent activities related to commodity trading. The Special Court's orders regarding the cognizance of offences against additional accused were challenged.

Findings of Court:
The Special Judge was justified in entertaining the application filed by NSEL for summoning additional accused at the stage of Section 190/193 of the Code.

Issues: Whether the application by NSEL seeking summons against persons not charge-sheeted is maintainable, and whether it was permissible to entertain the application at the stage of 190.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Special Judge has the authority to summon additional accused based on the evidence available, and that an accused can invoke this power to ensure all offenders are brought to justice.

Result: Appeals dismissed, upholding the impugned orders.

JUDGMENT :

(Bharati Dangre, J.)

I - THE BACKGROUND GIVING RISE TO APPEALS

1. On 30/9/2013, Pankaj Ramnaresh Saraf, Director of Vostak Far East Securities Pvt Ltd, Company involved in the business of investment, trading and financing, filed a complaint against the Directors and other persons holding key management post in National Spot Exchange Limited (for short ‘NSEL’), a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 2013, being a wholly owned subsidiary of Financial Technologies (India) Ltd, at the relevant time, known as ‘63 Moons Technologies Ltd’. The complaint also involved 25 borrowers/trading members and some brokers of NSEL and it invoked offence punishable u/s. 120B, 409, 465, 468, 471, 474 and 477A of Indian Penal Code, 1860. The complainant made a grievance that he had primarily been transacting in T + 2 + T + 25 contracts and since NSEL suspended trading and deferred settlement of all one day forward contract by 15 days, he did not receive payment of Rs. 202 lakhs that was due to him under various contracts. In addition, he alleged that the commodities were traded by providing ‘false’ warehouse receipts of ‘non-existent commodities’ as NSEL held the commodities in warehouses accredited to it as ‘trustee’ on behalf of the depositors (buyers) and therefore, the misappropriation amounted to criminal breach of trust. In addition, it was also alleged that the Settlement Guarantee Fund has been misused by NSEL.

This FIR was transferred to EOW and a case was registered under Section 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 (for short “MPID Act”) in addition to the relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the case was transferred to the Special Court constituted under the MPID Act.

2. The present Appeals revolve around the said case which is pending before the Special Court in form of MPID Special Case No. 1/2014.

Before we come to the subject matter of the Appeals and the controversy raised therein, arising out of the impugned order passed by the Special Court, we must refer to the nature of transactions entered into by NSEL, a Company which received an exemption from the Union of India under section 27 of the Forward Contracts (Regulation) Act 1952, exempting the forward contracts of one day duration for sale and purchase of commodities traded on NSEL.

NSEL operated as an exchange for spot trading in commodities and it launched contracts for buying and selling of commodities on its platform with different settlement periods, ranging from T + 0 to T + 36 days, ‘T’ indicating the trade date i.e. the date on which the trade took place.

NSEL offered ‘paid contracts’ which enabled traders either by themselves or through their brokers, to simultaneously enter into paid contracts of T + 2 and T + 25 duration. The seller through his broker, put the commodities on sale and the buyer who was interested in these commodities through his broker, purchased commodities as per his requirement and NSEL paired the buyer and seller, if there was a match between the requirement of the buyer and the available commodities with the seller. This resulted into a contract between the buyer and seller in form of T + 2 and T + 25 contracts.

A structured stepwise trading process of the paid contracts was operated by NSEL and it would facilitate the transaction between the seller, who wish to trade on the platform and who placed a specific quantity of commodity in a warehouse accredited to NSEL, who offered the commodity for sale, stipulating the price and quantity offered.

3. Reciprocating this transaction, was a step initiated on behalf of the buyer, a trading members or his broker, who would input buy orders of a particular commodity and quantity on the NSEL trading platform and pursuant thereto, it would communicate all the trades effected at the end of the day and the obligation report recording the pay-in and delivery obligations would be forwarded to the trading members. NSEL would