IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SUO MOTO CONTEMPT PETITION No.5 OF 2007 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 2 of 2008 IN SUO MOTO CONTEMPT PETITION No. 5 of 2007 IN WRIT PETITION No. 4801 OF 2000 High Court on its own motion ..Petitioner. Vs. Bhavna Uday Acharya and Ors ..Contemners. Mrs A.S. Pai, A.P.P. for the State. Mr Nitin Pradhan, Sr. Counsel with Ms S.D. Khot, Advocate for Contemner Nos.1 and 2. CORAM : BILAL NAZKI AND CORAM : BILAL NAZKI AND CORAM : BILAL NAZKI AND A.R. JOSHI,JJ. A.R. JOSHI,JJ. A.R. JOSHI,JJ. DATED : 18TH FEBRUARY,2009. DATED : 18TH FEBRUARY,2009. DATED : 18TH FEBRUARY,2009. P.C.:- P.C.:- P.C.:- 1. This is a contempt petition relating to contempt initiated by the Court itself by an order dated 22.12.2000. The Respondents (Contemners herein) are present in person. They have filed their counter affidavit. 2. We have heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the alleged contemners and also the learned Public Prosecutor for the State. 3. The Special Court under the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors Act, 1999, (for short "the M.P.I.D. Act" passed an order on 17.7.2000. The operative part of the order is as under: The attachment made by the competent authority of the 16 properties listed in M.A.No. 20/2000 is made absolute. All the properties shall be sealed and kept secured for distribution to the depositors in this case. So far as the realisation of the assets upon sale and equitable distribution thereof is concerned, the same is adjourned sine-die. The accused himself or the prosecution or the depositors shall apply to the court for further directions for realisation and distribution amongst the depositors after order are passed in Writ Petition No. 903/2000 challenging the virus of the M.P.I.D. Act. The application of the accused for time is taken on record. 4. The aforesaid order was challenged and the Division Bench of this Court on 8.9.2000 gave interim directions and thereafter on 10.10.2000 the Court directed that the Directors of the Respondent company and its Associates should file affidavits disclosing the accounts in various banks in the name of Roha Paper Mills (I) Pvt. Ltd. 5. One of the Contemners had filed an application seeking permission to run the Company and also prayed that attachment be lifted. 6. When the case came up before the Court, the Division Bench of this Court on 22.12.2000, noted that an appeal being M.A.No.20 of 2000 had been preferred. The Court noted that an appeal had been preferred by the Union and the Union wanted to run the company. While passing the order the Court was informed that after the order of attachment and sealing of the property was passed, Mrs Bhavna Acharya and Amol Acharya made huge withdrawals from the Company’s account to the tune of Rs.2,92,00,000/- during the period from 17.7.2000 to 10.11.2000. 7. The Court after noting submission made the following observation:- "At least prima facie we are satisfied that large funds of the company have been diverted from the account of the company after the Special Court’s order with a view to defraud the depositors. In our opinion the conduct of the directors of the company viz. Bhavna Acharya and Amol Acharya amounts to interference with the administration of justice. We, therefore, direct the office to issue notices to both the parties to show cause as to why they should not be proceeded with under the Contempt of Court Act..." 8. The learned counsel appearing for the Respondents-Contemners submits that there was no order restraining the respondents from operating the bank accounts. As a matter of fact, all 16 properties were attached by the Court. Therefore, a list is given. We, also after hearing the learned counsel for both the parties, do not find that there was any order of the court restraining the respondents from operating the bank accounts. Therefore, there was no disobedience of the order of the Court. 9. Now, whether the withdrawals of the amounts by the respondents from the bank accounts of the Company, whose assets had been attached, amounts to interference in the administration of justice or not, would be a question to be addressed to. Since the Court did not specifically order that the funds be not utilised and since the respondents have filed report of auditors available with the Company were utilized for the purpose of paying to the suppliers, paying salaries, taxes, purchase of raw materials and advocate fees. Therefore, no funds were diverted nor defrauded the creditors whose interest had been secured by attaching 16 valuable properties. 10. For these reasons we do not find that this is a case in which we should proceed with the contempt. Notice is discharged. 11. Contempt petition is disposed of. 12. In view of disposal of contempt petition, the Criminal Application No.2 of 2008 does not survive, hence it is also disposed of. (A.R.JOSHI,J.) (A.R.JOSHI,J.) (A.R.JOSHI,J.) (BILAL NAZKI,J.) (BILAL NAZKI,J.) (BILAL NAZKI,J.)