Dismissed

Maheshchandra Ramdulare Jaiswal v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC21 Mar 2018APL/3/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed an application seeking de-freezing of a bank account allegedly holding proceeds of the offence of cheating and criminal breach of trust. The court held the freeze was justified to recover the illicit amounts and rejected the request for release upon execution of an indemnity bond.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed. Liberty to approach afresh if the applicant is willing to deposit the sum of Rs. 16 lakhs.

Maheshchandra Ramdulare Jaiswal Vs the State of Maharashtra — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

1 16.3.18 apl

¶2

ISM

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3 OF 2018

¶5

Maheshchandra Ramdulare Jaiswal .....Applicant

¶6

V/s.

¶7

The State of Maharashtra .....Respondent

¶8

Mr. Kocharekar i/b Mr. Randhir Kale for the applicant. Mr. H. J. Dedhiya APP for the State.

¶9

CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.

¶10

DATE : MARCH 21, 2018.

¶11

P.C.

¶12

Heard. Son of the present applicant is involved in crime no. 98 of 2016 for offence punishable under section 406, 420 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code in which he claimed to have received amount of Rs. 8 crores. Out of the said amount of 8 crores, 16 lakhs are deposited in SB account no. 408130100000005 maintained with Janata Sahakari Bank, Chembur Branch which is jointly operated by the applicant and his son who is an accused. This amount of Rs. 16 lakhs which is part of the amount illegally received in the crime

¶13

2 16.3.18 apl

¶14

in question is withdrawn by the applicant.

¶15

2 The Investigating Officer, as a consequence, freezed the said account. Request for de-freezing is rejected vide the order impugned. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that since in the account in question, balance is below Rs. 16 lakhs, no fruitful purpose will be served by freezing the said account. As such, defreezing needs to be ordered. He submits that indemnity bond will be executed.

¶16

3 Perusal of papers which are placed on record depicts that applicant utilized the amount involved in crime in question which was received by his son and deposited in the account in question. He appears to be a dealer of Government Oil Company. In the aforesaid background, the submission that against the indemnity bond, order of de-freezing of account be made is a unreasonable request. It is with an intention to secure the amount of Rs. 16 lakhs which is a subject matter of the crime, Investigating Officer has freezed the account. No interference is warranted. Application is

¶17

3 16.3.18 apl

¶18

dismissed.

¶19

4 Liberty to the applicant to approach afresh, in case, if he is

¶20

ready and willing to deposit amount of Rs. 16 lakhs which is received out of the commission of crime in question.

¶21

[NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.]

Maheshchandra Ramdulare Jaiswal v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maheshchandra Ramdulare Jaiswal v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Icici Bank Limited Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Manju Ramesh Agarwal Vs Chittaranjan Housing Co. Pvt. Ltd., and Anr.

Manju Ramesh Agarwal Vs Sidhpur Commodities Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Bharti H. Shah Vs Rajen B Purohit and Anr.

Rajen B Purohit Vs Bharati H Shah and Anr.

The Director, M/S Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Maharashtra