2019 NearLaw (BombayHC Nagpur) Online 1168
Bombay High Court

JUSTICE ROHIT B. DEO

Kishor s/o. Jagdish Bhandarkar Vs. State of Maharashtra

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION 24 OF 2019

18th June 2019

Petitioner Counsel: Shri Ranjeet Singh Gahilot
Respondent Counsel: Smt. Ritu Sharma
Act Name: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial. Establishments) Act, 1999

The petitioner is challenging order dated 29.10.2018 rendered by the Special Judge (MPID), District Judge 2 & Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur to the extent of the conditions imposed by the MPID Court.
Treating the present application under section 457 of the Cr.PC and under Section 9 of the MPID Act, the vehicle bearing registration No MH 31/EA-7047, make and Model Nissan Sunny XL (DSL), Engine No e013122, Chassis No 6016695, is ordered to be returned to the applicant subject to the orders passed under Section 452 of the Cr.PC or Section 7 of the MPID Act, on the conclusions that the applicant shall execute a bank guarantee (and not an indemnity bond) of Rs 5.00 lacs before this designated Court.
(b) That, the applicant shall not, in any manner, dispose of or change the nature of the vehicle.
(c) That, the applicant shall furnish / return the said vehicle to the competent authority or as per the directions of this Court to any person, as and when ordered.
The bnk guarantee so furnished by the applicant shall be adjudicated under section 7 of the MPID Act.
(d) On failure of applicant to furnish the bank guarantee as aforesaid within 30 days from the date of this order, the application shall be treated as rejected.
In that event, the investigating officer is directed to auction sale the said vehicle over and above the valuation of the said vehicle (i.e. Rs 5.00 lacs) and shall file compliance report accordingly.
The submission of the learned counsel is that the vehicle in question was purchased by availing loan in the year 2016 and the purchase price of the used vehicle was 4,57,000/- approximately.
Considering that the vehicle is lying in the police station since January 2018, the price of the vehicle due to the natural wear and tear and depreciation and its disuse since long, would not exceed Rs 3 lacs is the submission.
The learned counsel states that the brother-in-law of the applicant shall furnish bank guarantee of Rs 3 lacs.
The submission that the applicant may be permitted to furnish bank guarantee of Rs 3 lacs is reasonable, in the facts of the case.
Needless to record, any adjudication as regards attachment and the disposal of the property under the Maharashtra Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act shall only be done strictly in accordance with the provisions of Section 4 to 10 of the said enactment.
The order impugned is modified to the extend the brother in law of the applicant Shri Mohit Kumar Gosewade is permitted to furnish bank guarantee of Rs 3 lacs on behalf of the applicant.
The bank guarantee furnished shall not be accepted unless it is subjected to due diligence.
The petition is disposed of in the aforestated terms.

Section :
Section 452 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 457 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 4 Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial. Establishments) Act, 1999 Section 5 Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial. Establishments) Act, 1999 Section 6 Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial. Establishments) Act, 1999 Section 7 Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial. Establishments) Act, 1999 Section 8 Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial. Establishments) Act, 1999 Section 9 Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial. Establishments) Act, 1999 Section 10 Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial. Establishments) Act, 1999

Cases Cited :

JUDGEMENT

With consent, heard finally at the admission stage.

2. The petitioner is challenging order dated 29.10.2018 rendered by the Special Judge (M.P.I.D.), District Judge – 2 & Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur to the extent of the conditions imposed by the M.P.I.D. Court.

3. In this context of the grievance, operative part of the order impugned may be noted:

“[1] Misc. Criminal Application No. 2570/2018 is allowed. Treating the present application under section 457 of the Cr.P.C. and under Section 9 of the M.P.I.D. Act, the vehicle bearing registration No. MH 31/EA-7047, make and Model – Nissan Sunny XL (DSL), Engine No. e013122, Chassis No. 6016695, is ordered to be returned to the applicant subject to the orders passed under Section 452 of the Cr.P.C. or Section 7 of the M.P.I.D. Act, on the conclusions that the applicant shall execute a bank guarantee (and not an indemnity bond) of Rs. 5.00 lacs before this designated Court. The following additional conditions are imposed on the applicant.
(a) That, the applicant shall furnish two colour photographs of the vehicle, snapped from two angles.
(b) That, the applicant shall not, in any manner, dispose of or change the nature of the vehicle.
(c) That, the applicant shall furnish / return the said vehicle to the competent authority or as per the directions of this Court to any person, as and when ordered. The bnk guarantee so furnished by the applicant shall be adjudicated under section 7 of the M.P.I.D. Act.
(d) On failure of applicant to furnish the bank guarantee as aforesaid within 30 days from the date of this order, the application shall be treated as rejected. In that event, the investigating officer is directed to auction sale the said vehicle over and above the valuation of the said vehicle (i.e. Rs. 5.00 lacs) and shall file compliance report accordingly.”

4. The submission of the learned counsel is that the vehicle in question was purchased by availing loan in the year 2016 and the purchase price of the used vehicle was 4,57,000/- approximately. Considering that the vehicle is lying in the police station since January 2018, the price of the vehicle due to the natural wear and tear and depreciation and its disuse since long, would not exceed Rs. 3 lacs is the submission.

5. The learned counsel states that the brother-in-law of the applicant shall furnish bank guarantee of Rs. 3 lacs. The submission that the applicant may be permitted to furnish bank guarantee of Rs. 3 lacs is reasonable, in the facts of the case. Needless to record, any adjudication as regards attachment and the disposal of the property under the Maharashtra Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act shall only be done strictly in accordance with the provisions of Section 4 to 10 of the said enactment.

6. The order impugned is modified to the extend the brother in law of the applicant Shri Mohit Kumar Gosewade is permitted to furnish bank guarantee of Rs. 3 lacs on behalf of the applicant.

7. The bank guarantee furnished shall not be accepted unless it is subjected to due diligence. The bank guarantee shall be of a nationalized bank.

8. The petition is disposed of in the aforestated terms.