1 jpc/- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 454 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2009 S. Irani (Sorkhab) ..Applicant Vs. State of Maharashtra and another .. Respondents Shri G. S. Godbole, i/b Shri S. S. Kanetkar for the Applicant, Shri Ganesh Gole a/w Shri Ajay Khaire and Mrs. Prachi Mhatre i/by M. S. Bodhanwalla & Co. for Respondent No.2, 2(A) to 2(D) Shri P. A. Pol, APP for the Respondent -State CORAM :SMT. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATE : 21st July, 2009. ORAL ORDER 1. Heard. 2. This is an application for leave to appeal filed against the order dated 24.11.2008 passed by the Sessions Judge, Pune allowing the appeal against conviction preferred by the accused. 3. The applicant i.e. original Complainant- a flat purchaser has filed a Complaint against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 11 read with Section 30 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963( MOFA). The JMFC, Pune has convicted the accused No.1, 1(A), 1(B) and 1(C) under Section 248 of the Criminal Procedure Code for the offence punishable 2 under Section 11 read with Section 30 of the MOFA and Rule 9 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Rules, 1964. The Judgement dated 3.9.2005 delivered by the JMFC holding the accused guilty was challenged before the Sessions Judge, Pune. The Learned Sessions Judge allowed the appeal and acquitted the accused vide its order dated 24.11.2008. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant has submitted that Clause 34 in the Agreement which is relied by the learned Sessions Judge is in contravention with Section 10 of the MOFA. Learned Session Judge has wrongly appreciated the principles of vicarious liability under Section 14 of the MOFA. It is further submitted that the assessment of the reasonable excuse for non executing the conveyance deed in favour of the Society is erroneous. 5. The learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents, while opposing the application for leave, has submitted that the Respondent- Builder has executed the deed of conveyance in favour of the Society, few months back and as such there is no cause for this appeal. It is argued that non cooperation of the members of the society is the reason for non execution of the conveyance deed and it is the society who was the defaulter and not the respondent and hence, no leave be granted. 6. Considering Section 10 of the MOFA, execution and registration of the Conveyance deed is a Statutory requirement and failure to do so under the Act is a continuous offence. Subsequent execution and registration of the Deed of Conveyance in favour of the Society does not 3 eliminate the criminality as stated under the Statute. It is pointed pointed out that though one of the Respondents was Chairman of the Cooperative Society, no steps were taken for registration. These aspects are required to be considered. 7. In the result, the leave to appeal under Section 378(4) is granted. 8. Appeal is admitted and shall come up for hearing in due course. (MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)