Dismissed

Geeta Sanjay Mahadik v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC26 Sept 2022APEAL/569/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against the rejection of an application to release property attached under the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors Act. The court upheld the impugned order, stating that the absence of due diligence before purchase burdened the appellant, allowing no legal error by the Trial Court.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; attached property retains its lien status.

Geeta Sanjay Mahadik Vs the State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

Osk 26-APEAL-569-2022.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 569 OF 2022 WITH

¶5

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 902 OF 2021

¶6

Geeta Sanjay Mahadik … Appellant V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents

¶7

Mr. Satyajeet P. Dighe for Appellant.

¶8

Mr. S.S. Hulke, A.P.P. for Respondent-State.

¶9

CORAM : A.S. GADKARI AND MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ.

¶10

DATE : 26^th September 2022.

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

By the present Appeal, Appellant has impugned Order dated 18^th

¶13

March 2020 passed in Misc. Application No. 974 of 2017 in M.P.I.D. Case No. 24 of 2013 rejecting her application for releasing the attachment/setting aside attachment of property i.e. Room No.11, Mangal Murti Nivas, Sahakari Gruhnirman Sanstha Ltd., Rohidas Nagar, Chandhare, Taluka Alibaug, District Raigad (for short, “suit property”) under Section 4 of the The Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 (for short, “M.P.I.D. Act”) by the Investigating Agency i.e. Respondent No.2.

¶14

1/3

¶15

Osk 26-APEAL-569-2022.odt

¶16

Heard Mr.Dighe, learned Advocate for Appellant and Mr.Hulke, learned A.P.P. for State. Perused entire record produced before us.

¶17

It is the prosecution case that, the suit property was purchased by original accused Mr.Prasad Lad from the crime proceeds of the present crime. He subsequently sold the said property to Mr.Prashant Jain on 7^th June 2012. The present crime i.e. C.R. No.67 of 2013 was lodged with Mahim Police Station on 4^th February 2013. The suit property was notified at Sr.No.1 in the Notification dated 30^th March 2016 by the Competent Authority established under the said provisions. Record indicates that, suit property was sealed on 7^th March 2013 and a notice was also pasted on it.

¶18

As noted earlier, the Notification under Section 4 of the M.P.I.D. Act was published on 30^th March 2016. In this premise, it is the case of the Appellant that, she purchased suit property on 15^th November 2016 from Mr.Prashant Jain. Admittedly before purchasing the said property, the Appellant did not take necessary legal care i.e. search of the suit property with the Office of the Sub-Registrar of Assurances and/or with other necessary Government Authorities.

¶19

Learned A.P.P. submitted that, the Investigating Agency has also forwarded Notification issued under Section 4 of the M.P.I.D. Act to all the Competent Authorities intimating attachment of the various suit properties in the present crime.

¶20

2/3

¶21

Osk 26-APEAL-569-2022.odt

¶22

According to us for not taking proper care before purchasing of the suit property from Prashant Jain, the Appellant will have to thank herself. It is by operation of law the said property had been attached by Investigating Agency i.e. Competent Authority under the provisions of the M.P.I.D. Act.

¶23

In view of the above and after perusing the impugned Order dated 18^th March 2020, we find that the Trial Court has not committed any error either in law or on facts while passing it. We find no merits in the Appeal.

¶24

Appeal is accordingly dismissed.

¶25

In view of disposal of Appeal, Interim Application No. 902 of

¶26

2021 pending therein does not survive and is accordingly disposed off.

¶27

[MILIND N. JADHAV, J.] [A.S. GADKARI, J.]

¶28

Digitally signed by OMKAR SHIVAHAR OMKAR KUMBHAKARN SHIVAHAR KUMBHAKARN Date: 2022.10.03 16:39:26 +0530

¶29

3/3

Geeta Sanjay Mahadik v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Geeta Sanjay Mahadik v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

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

Mahesh Shrihari Latpate Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shriniwas Mahadev Anandkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Rahul Bhimashankar Anandkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Surendra Rudrapratap Singh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Geeta Sanjay Mahadik Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Akbarkhan Ajmer Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra