Advocates:
SANGEETA KUMAR

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 1 of 8

CASE NO.:

Appeal (crl.) 394 of 2001

PETITIONER:

UDAY MOHANLAL ACHARYA

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 29/03/2001

BENCH:

B.N. Agrawal

JUDGMENT:

L...I...T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J

JUDGMENT

B.N. AGRAWAL,J.

I have perused the judgment of my learned Brother

Pattanaik,J., for whom I have the highest regard and while

agreeing with him with respect to conclusion nos. 1 to 5, I

find myself unable to agree on conclusion no. 6, enumerated

hereunder, upon which alone decision of this appeal is

dependent, and observations and direction connected

therewith:-

The expression ‘if not already availed of used by

this Court in Sanjay Dutt vs. State through CBI Bombay(II),

(1994) 5 SCC 410, must be understood to mean when the

accused files an application and is prepared to offer bail

on being directed. In other words, on expiry of the period

specified in paragraph (a) of proviso to sub-section (2) of

Section 167 if the accused files an application for bail and

offers also to furnish the bail, on being directed, then it

has to be held that the accused has availed of his

indefeasible right even though the Court has not considered

the said application and has not indicated the terms and

conditions of bail, and the accused has not furnished the

same.

There was mushroom growth of financial establishments in

the State of Maharashtra in the recent past. The sole

object of these establishments was of grabbing money

received as deposits from public, mostly middle class and

poor on the promises of unprecedented highly attractive

rates of interest or rewards and without any obligation to

refund the deposit to the investors on maturity or without

any provision for ensuring rendering of the services in kind

in return, as assured. Many of these financial

establishments had defaulted to return the deposits on

maturity or to pay interest or render the services in kind,

in return, as assured to the public. As such deposits run

into crores of rupees it had resulted in great public

resentment and uproar, creating law and order problem in the

State of Maharashtra, specially in the city like Mumbai.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 2 of 8

With a view to curb such unscrupulous activities of such

financial establishments in the State of Maharashtra, it was

found expedient to make suitable special legislation in

public interest and accordingly Maharashtra Protection of

Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishment) Act,

1999 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the MPID Act) was enacted

by the Maharashtra Legislature, Section 3 whereof provided

that any financial establishment, which fraudulently

defaults any repayment of deposit on maturity along with any

benefit in the form of interest, bonus, profit or in any

other form as promised or fraudulently fails to render

service as assured against the deposit, every person

including the promoter, partner, director, manager or any

other person or an employee responsible for the management

of or conducting of the business or affairs of such

financial establishment shall, on conviction, be punished

with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six years

and with fine which may extend to one lac of rupees and such

financial establishment also shall be liable to a fine which

may extend to one lac of rupees.

The respondent-State of Maharashtra filed a complaint in

the Court of the Special Judge, Greater Bombay, bearing C.R.

No. 36 of 1999 for prosecution of the appellant for the

offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code

read with Section 3 of the MPID Act alleging therein that

the appellant was carrying on business as a sole proprietor

under the name and style