1 WP.84-2005 acd IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 84 OF 2005 M/s Vatsa Corporation Ltd. & Anr. ..Petitioners. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents. WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 85 OF 2005 M/s Vatsa Corporation Ltd. & Anr. ..Petitioners. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents. WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 72 OF 2007 IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 84 OF 2005 AND CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 73 OF 2007 IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 85 OF 2005 ----- Mr. Kirani Kulkarni, a/w Mr. Mahesh Dixit for Petitioner in both Petitions and for applicants in APPW Nos.72 & 73 of 2007. Mr. N.D. Desai, CA for Respondent no.4 in APPW No.73/2007. Mr. P.A. Pol, PP, for the State. ---- 2 WP.84-2005 CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & U.D. SALVI, JJ. JUNE 21, 2011. P.C. 1 Both these Petitions filed by the very same petitioner-company pray for the very same reliefs which read as under: Writ Petition No.84 of 2005: “(a) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue writ, order or direction under Article 226 of Constitution of India directing the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 to furnish a list of the genuine investors along with the information as required in the format published by the Petitioners in the Official Gazette before this Hon’ble Court; (b) The Respondent Nos.2 and 3 may be further directed to furnish the details of the accounts of the payments made to the investors in pursuant to the deposits made by the Petitioners with the E.Q.W., G.B., C.B., C.I.D., Crime Branch, Mumbai and also the documents accepted while making such payments; (c) The proceedings in CR No.20 of 1998 registered with E.O.W., G.B., C.B., C.I.D., Mumbai vide FIR lodged by Shri Manchanda may be quashed and set aside.; (d) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the present Petition, all further proceedings in CR No.20 of 1998 registered with E.O.W., G.B., C.B., C.I.D., Mumbai vide FIR lodged by Shri Manchanda may be stayed. 3 WP.84-2005 Writ Petition No.85 of 2005: (a) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue writ, order or direction under Article 226 of Constitution of India directing the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 to furnish a list of the genuine investors along with the information as required in the format published by the Petitioners in the Official Gazette before this Hon’ble Court; (b) The Respondent Nos.2 and 3 may be further directed to furnish the details of the accounts of the payments made to the investors in pursuant to the deposits made by the Petitioners with the E.O.W., G.B., C.B., C.I.D., Crime Branch, Mumbai and also the documents accepted while making such payments; (c) The Respondent Nos.2 and 3 may be further directed to verify the genuineness of the investors/ the documents relied upon by them which is the subject matter of the present complaint; (d) The proceedings in Criminal Case No.9/2000 pending in the court of the Ld. Special Court for M.P.I.D. Mumbai may be quashed and set aside.” 2 In Cri. Writ Petition No.85 of 2005, the petitioner-company have also prayed for an additional relief to quash and set aside the proceedings in Special Case No.9 of 2000. 4 WP.84-2005 3 These Petitions arose out of the CR. No.20 of 1998 registered with the Economic Offences Wing of GB, CB, CID, Crime Branch, Mumbai Police. On investigation into the said CR, the charge-sheet was filed before the Special Court under the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors Act (in Financial establishments) Act, 1999 ( for short “ the MPID Act”) and the case has been registered as MPID Special Case No.9 of 2000. While the Petitioner-company was facing the trial in the said case, Criminal Writ Petition No.903 of 2000 came to be filed before this Court challenging the constitutional validity of the MPID Act and a Full Bench of this court by its judgment dated 5.9.2005 held that the MPID Act was unconstitutional. This judgment came to be challenged before the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.1597 of 2005 and the said appeal has been allowed on 9.5.2011. The Supreme Court held that the judgment of this court was not correct and the MPID Act is constitutionally valid. 4 The Supreme Court by its order dated 8th March, 2010, requested us to hear these petitions and dispose them off at an early date and during the last one year these petitions came to be listed on several occasions, but without final disposal. 5 WP.84-2005 5 In the meanwhile, the investors have filed an applications for refund of deposits and some of them were allowed on the basis of the Commissioner’s report. As of now there is no dispute about the fact that the prayer clauses (a), (b) and (c) have become infructuous and so far as prayer clause (d) of Criminal Writ Petition No.85 of 2005 is concerned, the same cannot be entertained when the Supreme Court has held that MPID Act is constitutionally valid. The remedy of the petitioner-company, even now, may be to apply for discharge before the Special Court. 6 The learned Counsel for the petitioner-company, at this stage, submitted that Criminal Application Nos.72 of 2007 and 73 of 2007 have been filed by the petitioner-company and they are required to be heard and decided on merits. 7 The relief prayed in Criminal Application No.72 of 2007 is for quashing of Special Case No.9 of 2000 along with CR No.20 of 1998. The petitioner-company further prayed for direction to investigate the false claims and the claims made based on forged receipts. 6 WP.84-2005 8 We have dealt with the prayer for quashing the proceedings in Special Case No.9 of 2000. So far as quashing of CR No.20 of 1998 is concerned, the same does not survive on account of the fact that on investigation in the same CR, the charge sheet has been filed in the year 2000 itself. So far as the prayer for direction to investigate the false claims and the claims made on the basis of forged receipts is concerned, nothing stops the petitioner, agitating the same before the Special Court in the pending case. 9 So far as the prayer for setting aside the Commissioner’s report in Criminal Application No.73 of 2007 is concerned, we have given our anxious considerations and we do not find any error in the said report. In fact, the said report has been acted upon by us while passing earlier orders allowing applications of the investors for refund of the money and the challenge to these orders has failed before the Supreme Court. 10 Hence, Criminal Writ Petition Nos.84 and 85 of 2005, as well as Criminal Application Nos.72 and 73 of 2007 are hereby disposed with liberty as is available in law to the petitioners. (U.D. SALVI, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.) 7 WP.84-2005