STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. SANJEEV S/O SHANKARRAO KHADE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The competent authority appointed under M.P.I.D. Act has filed present appeal under Sec. 11 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishment) Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as 'MPID Act'). Learned District Judge-2 and Special Court, MPID, Nagpur in MPID Misc. Civil Application No. 3/2016 refused to make absolute notification in respect of property shown at serial no. 3 in the said notification and released the same in favour of respondent no. 2. The property is a Flat bearing No. 101 situated on 1st Floor in A-Wing of the building known as Jayanti Mansion - VI, Manish Nagar, Nagpur. It is jointly owned by respondent nos. 1 and 2.

(2.) The competent authority, vide notification dtd. 29/3/2016 issued under Sec. 5(3) of the MPID Act, attached properties of respondent nos. 1 and 2. The respondent no. 1 (since deceased) was a director of financial institution, namely, M/s Wetell Concepts Private Limited. According to prosecution, said company had launched various schemes and promised lucrative returns and thus, received deposits of Rupees more than 3 Crores from 161 depositors. They failed to return the amount of deposits. Accordingly, the report was lodged against directors of the company including respondent no. 1 vide Crime No. 313/2011 for the offences punishable under Ss. 420, 406, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code read with Sec. 3 of the MPID Act. The appellant - competent authority was satisfied that the respondents have acquired said properties out of the deposits collected by them and are not likely to refund the deposits to the depositors. Accordingly, the prosecution filed application under sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 5 of MPID Act for making order of attachment absolute as also for directions for realization of assets in terms of Ss. 4 and 7 of MPID Act. The respondents appeared before the trial Court. The respondent no. 2 is wife of respondent no. 1. Their case was that they purchased flat on 11/5/2011 out of their own income. The respondent no. 2 entered witness box to prove that the flat is their self-acquired property.

(3.) Respondent no. 1 died during pendency of the appeal and his legal representative, viz. respondent no. 3 is brought on record.