2023:BHC-AS:37778-DB Iresh IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 491 OF 2003

1. Smt. Madhu Deepak Gogri Age 53 years, Occ. Housewife, R/at: B/107, Raj Crystal C.H.S.

Ltd. Royal Complex, Eksar Road, Borivali, Mumbai. 2. Mayank Deepak Gogri Age: 30 years, Occ. Business, R/at: Door No. 40-25-43, Flat No. 9, 5^th floor, Hemlatha Enclave, K Chenna Kesvavrao Street, Petamatalanka Vijaywada - 520010 A.P. ….Appellants Versus

1. The State of Maharashtra (At the instance of GBCD)

CID, Mumbai.

2. Joseph D. Vaz

3, Vaz Bungalow, J.C. Colony, Boriwali (W), Mumbai 400103 (At present in custody)

Yerwada Central Prison Pune 3. The Competent Authority Administrative Building near Chetana College, Government Colony, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400 051 ...Respondents Mr. Sandeep R. Karnik a/w Mr. Rohan Bhosale for appellants Mrs. P. P. Shinde, APP for the State CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE &

GAURI GODSE, JJ.

RESERVED ON : 25th OCTOBER 2023 FURTHER HEARING ON : 8^th NOVEMBER 2023 PRONOUNCED ON: 15th DECEMBER 2023 JUDGMENT: (PER: GAURI GODSE, J.)

1. This appeal is preferred by the owners of the property, as their property is attached pursuant to the orders passed by the learned Special Judge, designated under The Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 (‘MPID’ Act), making the show cause notice of attachment absolute by exercising powers under Section 8 of the MPID Act.

Brief Facts:

2. The appellants are the owners of the property in question, i.e. Shop Nos. 1 and 2 in the building known as Prem Bhanu Apartment, IC Colony, Borivali (West) (‘said shops’). FIR came to be registered on

15^th February 2000 against M/s Technology Connection and M/s. Techcons Shelterettes Ltd. The allegation was that one Mr Joseph Dennis Vaz, his wife and his son were running the said alleged financial establishments. The case of the prosecution is that there was a scheme of recruiting candidates to the Gulf countries, but later on, the accused set up a scheme for giving homes to the aged and homeless senior citizens. The appellants are not arraigned as accused in the case. During the investigation, the police sealed the said shops and took possession of them as per directions of the designated court, on the ground that the accused was in possession of the said shops pursuant to a leave and licence agreement executed by the owner.

CASE OF APPELLANTS:

3. The appellants' case is that the said shops were initially standing in the name of M/s. Deepak Constructions, which was a partnership firm. Subsequently, the partnership firm was dissolved and said shops were handed over to Deepak Gogri (“original owner”), the partner of the said partnership firm. The present appellants are brought on record of the appeal as the heirs and legal representatives of the said Deepak Gogri after his demise pending the appeal. The said shops were given on leave and licence basis to the accused by executing an agreement for leave and licence on 26^th June 1991, which was renewed up to the year 1999. Since there was default in payment of rent, possession of the said shops was taken over by the owner in March 2000.

4. Said shops were attached pursuant to the orders passed by the Special Judge, MPID Court, as the said shops were given on leave and licence basis to the accused. The original owner was served with a show cause notice dated 11^th November 2002 for attachment of the said shops under section 8 of the MPID Act. Hence, the original owner had raised his objections opposing the attachment by filing an application numbered as MA No. 622 of 2002. In the said application, the original owner contended that the said shops were initially owned by M/s. Deepak Constructions and requisite share certificates bearing nos. 19 and 20 were issued in the name of M/s. Deepak Constructions. The said M/s. Deepak Constructions had entered into a leave and licence agreement on or about 26^th June 1991 with Mr Joseph Vaz for two year