Important provisions of Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999

 3. Fraudulent default by Financial Establishment. Any Financial Establishment, which fraudulently defaults any repayment of deposit on maturity alongwith any benefit in the form of interest, bonus, profit or in any other form as promised or fraudulently fails to render service as assured against the deposit, every person including the promoter, partner, director, manager or any other person or an employee responsible for the management of or conducting of the business or affairs of such Financial Establishment shall, on conviction, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six years and with fine which may extend to one lac of rupees and such Financial Establishment also shall be liable for a fine which may extend to one lac of rupees.

4. Attachment of properties on default of return of deposits.

Print Page

Whether dismissal of complaint case for non-appearance of complainant in warrant trial will amount to discharge of accused?

So far as the accused is concerned, dismissal of a complaint for non-appearance of the complainant or his discharge or acquittal on the same ground is a final order and in the absence of any specific provision in the Code, a Magistrate cannot exercise any inherent jurisdiction."

From the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court no doubt is left and rather law has been settled that dismissal of a complaint for non-appearance of the complainant in the warrant case would result in discharge and that would be final order and similarly the dismissal of the complainant for non-appearance of the complainant in the summons case would result in acquittal and the same would be final order and in the absence of any specific provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Magistrate cannot revive the said order. That being the settled legal position, making of an application by the complainant on 21-9-1991 for restoration of the complaint was wholly misplaced and misconceived and therefore cannot be said to be done in good faith and the order passed by the trial Court on that application restoring and reviving the complaint was also not only erroneous but without jurisdiction and further proceedings pursuant thereto were also non est and void.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Criminal Application No. 1061 of 1994

Decided On: 17.08.1995

Narayandas Gulabchand Agrawal Vs. Rakesh Kumar S/o Nem Kumar Porwal

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R.M. Lodha, J.

Citation: 1996 CivilCC 592, 1996 CriLJ 29, 1996(2)MhLJ463

Print Page

When Magistrate can discharge accused in warrant trial complaint case without recording evidence?

There is however no warrant for the proposition that Under Section 245(2), Criminal Procedure Code a Magistrate is prevented in any way from discharging the accused at any previous stage prior to taking all the evidence, if he comes to the conclusion, for reasons to be recorded, that he considers the charges to be groundless. If in any particular case, as has happened here, the complainant fails to produce the witnesses for which he has assumed responsibility, and the case is dragged on due to such successive lapses of the complainant, there is nothing inherently unreasonable in the Magistrate coming to the conclusion that the charge is groundless and that the accused persons be discharged. To hold the contrary should grant a premium to the complainant to prolong the harassment to the accused at his mercy. 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA

Criminal Revision No. 103 of 1980

Decided On: 17.09.1986

 Agadhu Das Vs.  Baban Parida and ten Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
G.B. Patnaik and Lingaraj Rath, JJ.

Equivalent Citation: 62(1986)CLT540, 1986(II)OLR493, 1986(2)OLR493,1987CRLJ555 Orissa

Print Page