1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4443 OF 2002 IN BOMBAY SPL. COURT FOR GREATER BOMBAY UNDER M.P.I.D. ACT APPLICATION NO. 573 OF 2002 IN SPL. COURT MUMBAI CASE NO. 2 OF 2001. Marol Doodh Utpadak Welfare ) Association, formerly known as ) Ahura Manda Depositors and ) Investors Forum, a Registered ) Association, having its office ) atr 83-84, L. B. M. Compound, Opp. ) A. C. Market, Tardeo Road, Mumbai ) 400 034, through its Office Bearers ) and Managing Committee ) 1) Shri Rajesh R. Rao ) President. ) 2) Shri Kira Minu Daver ) Vice President. ) 3) Shri Anthony Tavare ) General Secretary. ) 4) Shri Haseeb Siddiqui ) Joint Secretary. ) 5) Shri Harish Hoige Suvarna, ) Treasurer. )... ... Applicants. 2 VERSUS 1)The State of Maharashtra ) through G.B. C.B. CID, Mumbai. ) 2)Shri Virafali Kanga ) 3)Hutoxi Viraf Kanga ) 4)Kwality Masala & Foods ) Through Shri Mahendra Doshi, ) No.2, having address at Godrej Baug, ) F-10, Simla House, Napeansea Road, ) Mumbai-400 006. No.3, having ) address at 21, Navnit Society, 40-A, ) Bajaj Road, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai ) 400 056. ) 5)Shri Balkrishna Bhange ) Inspector of Police, ) Investigating Officer, General Branch,) Crime Branch, C.I.D., Mumbai - ) 400 001. ).... .... Respondents. Mr. M. V. Holamagi for the Petitioner. Mrs. U. V. Kejariwal, APP for the State. Mr. Ruchir Dholakia for Respondent No.2. CORAM : BILAL NAZKI and A. R. JOSHI, JJ. RESERVED ON : 23RD MARCH, 2009. PRONOUNCED ON: 16TH APRIL, 2009. (At 4.45 p.m.) J U D G E M E N T (Per Bilal Nazki, J.) .: The petitioner moved an application before the Trial Court in Special Court Bombay Case No. 2 of 2001. The reliefs claimed in the present 3 application are: "(a) That this Honourable Court be pleased to direct to reinvestigate the matter and rearrest the respondent Nos.2 and 3 and recover all the properties which are under their control and belonging to them and their relatives which are also acquired by the funds invested by the Applicants and other investors and depositors and direct to distribute the said amounts received to the applicants, members and other proportionately; (b) That since the respondents failed to dispose off the properties and the applicant be given opportunity to find out viable solution to generate money and direct to hand over the properties to the applicants on such terms and conditions as deem fit and proper. (c) Before passing any order by this Honourable Court, the investigating officer and the respondents be directed to remove the seal and to give inspection of the factory premises, machinery, etc. to the applicants forthwith and to pass such directions and orders as deem fit and proper. (d) That pending the hearing and final disposal of the application, the investigation officer and the Trial Court not to dispose of the property without calling open bid and not to proceed with the said sale of the property without giving inspection to the Applicant and without making proper arrangement for the consideration by this Honourable Court; and STAY further steps in the process of sale of the property.” 2. The main prayer was that the matter be directed to be reinvestigated and rearrest of respondent Nos.2 and 3 should be ordered and to recover all properties which are under their control having belonging to them. It is also contended that since the respondents have failed to dispose off the properties, the properties should be handed over to the applicants on such terms and conditions as deem fit and proper. The trial Court passed an order, which is 4 well reasoned order. It is submitted that the trial Court had already sealed all the three immoveable properties of the accused and the applicants had also been asked to find buyers. Since the buyers were not forthcoming, therefore, no further orders could be passed. It also gave liberty to the applicants to point out if there were any property of the accused that may be brought to the notice of the Court, even if the properties were transferred property. Against this order the present application came to be filed. 3. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. We do not find that the order of the Court below could be interfered with. But the applicants were able to get the management of all attached properties without even settling the controversy which is pending before the Court and this Court passed an order on 12th March, 2003. This order, in our view, was outside the scope of this application. 4. Since we do not find any merits in the main application and we do not find any ground to set aside or modify the order passed by the Special Court, we dismiss the application and consequently withdraw the interim order passed by this Court on 12th March, 2003. 5. The properties shall remain in the custody of the Court as attached properties and in the meantime if the petitioners have any other grievance they may move the Special Court. The trial court shall also make arrangement for selling the properties. 5 6. This application is, accordingly, disposed of. Sd/- (BILAL NAZKI, J.) Sd/- (A. R. JOSHI, J.)