MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Bombay High Court Denies Suspension of Sentence for Convicted Financial Fraudsters

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


"The actions of the accused have significantly undermined public trust in financial institutions," says Court

In a recent ruling, the Bombay High Court denied applications for the suspension of sentences and bail for several individuals convicted of financial fraud under the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 (MPID Act) and various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The convicts, including Hasan Amir Raje, Mahesh Baban Zaware, Anup Pravin Parekh, and others, were found guilty of serious offences involving misappropriation and fraud in the Sampada Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Limited, a financial institution in Ahmednagar.

The Sampada Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Limited, a cooperative financial institution, was registered in 2001 and had over 25,820 depositors. Following a detailed audit by PW20, a Chartered Accountant, significant discrepancies were found, revealing misappropriation of funds amounting to Rs. 13,28,55,667. Consequently, criminal proceedings were initiated, and the accused were charged with offences under Sections 177, 406, 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B of the IPC, as well as Section 3 of the MPID Act.

The court underscored the severity of economic offences, likening them to grave crimes due to their impact on society and public trust. "Economic offences constitute a serious threat to the financial stability of institutions and the economy at large," the bench observed.

Each accused played a distinct role in the fraud, ranging from board members to managing committee members and borrowers. The court noted that the misappropriation involved deliberate circumvention of rules, with some accused benefiting directly or indirectly from the fraudulent loans.

The court highlighted the substantial evidence presented during the trial, which established the involvement of the accused in the fraud. Given the magnitude of the crime and its societal impact, the court found no justification for suspending the sentences or granting bail.

The judgment emphasized that the power to suspend sentences under Section 389 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) should be exercised judiciously and only in cases where there is a strong likelihood of the conviction being overturned on appeal. "Given the extensive evidence and the gravity of the offences, it is not a fit case for suspension of sentence or grant of bail," the court stated.

Justice Abhay S. Waghwase remarked, "The actions of the accused have significantly undermined public trust in financial institutions. The magnitude of the fraud necessitates a stringent approach to uphold the rule of law and deter similar offences in the future."

The denial of suspension of sentence and bail in this case reflects the judiciary's commitment to addressing serious economic offences with the gravity they deserve. By rejecting the applications, the court reaffirmed the importance of maintaining public trust in financial institutions and ensuring that those who engage in large-scale financial fraud are held accountable.

 

Date of Decision: May 10, 2024

Hasan Amir Raje vs The State of Maharashtra

Latest Legal News