Classic Case Where Investors Have Been Let Down By Economic Offences Wing: Bombay HC Expresses Anguish, Orders Chargesheet To Be Filed Within 4 Weeks
|The Bombay High Court took note of a case registered under the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act involving more than 600 investors where EOW had not filed a charge sheet even after the lapse of 4 years. The High Court termed this matter as a classic case where investors have been let down by the Economic Offences Wing.
The matter revolved around an FIR registered under Sections 120B, 34, 420, 406, 409 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act (MPID). The said case was transferred to EOW and was re-numbered.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Prithviraj K. Chavan and Justice Revati Mohite Dere observed, “In a sense, we feel that the police have betrayed the investors of their legitimate right of seeing that the investigation is completed expeditiously, in a timely and able manner.”
Advocate Mutahar Khan appeared for the Petitioner while Public Prosecutor H. S. Venegavkar appeared for the Respondent.
The Bench noticed that the investors are constrained to run from pillar to post, before all the authorities, engage advocates when in fact, the authorities in law must take appropriate steps. “This is a classic case where the investors have been let down by the Economic Offences Wing (`EOW’), a specialized agency of Mumbai Police”, it said.
The Bench noted that there are more than 600 investors in the said case. Four years have lapsed since the registration of the C.R. Despite four years having lapsed, the EOW has not bothered to file a charge-sheet, till date. It was also noticed that pursuant to several orders passed by this Court to give full effect to the MPID Act, the Competent Authority filed an application before the trial Court, pursuant to which the properties were attached and orders were passed to auction the properties.
“We are extremely unhappy with the manner in which the EOW, Unit-8, Mumbai has taken four years to file even a basic charge-sheet against the accused”, the Bench said.
“Whether it is the investors, which in this case are more than 600 or the accused, all of them have a legitimate expectation to see that the investigation concludes at the earliest. Investigation cannot be permitted to linger on for years, keeping the investors in the lurch, not knowing what is the outcome of the case”, it further added.
Noting the fact that the investors are senior citizens who have invested lakhs of rupees, the Bench observed, “It is the duty of the police to see that the investigation is completed, at the earliest and is taken to its logical end. For reasons best known, not even one charge-sheet has been filed. Infact, the law is well settled that even after the first charge-sheet is filed, it is always open for the police to continue with the investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and file supplementary charge-sheets.”
The Bench highlighted that this was one such case, where prosecution could have been against the concerned officers or departmental inquiry against the concerned person could have been directed. However, the Bench refrained from doing the same, only because of the statement made by the Public Prosecutor that the charge-sheet would be filed in the said case for all the offences.
It further held, “Having expressed our anguish to Mr. Venegavkar, learned P.P, Mr. Venegavkar, on instructions of the higher-ups of the EOW, Unit-8, Mumbai, states that charge-sheet will be filed within four weeks from today, both under the provisions of the IPC as well as the provisions of the MPID i.e. the Sections invoked in the C.R when the C.R was registered on 7th October 2020. Statement accepted.”
The Bench also asserted that the investigation will be done in its right earnest and charge-sheet will be filed as assured within four weeks. “Stand over to 28th January 2025, for ensuring that the statement made by Mr. Venegavkar is complied with”, it held while concluding the matter.
Cause Title: Arvind Solanki v. The State of Maharashtra, through Economic Offences Wing Unit-8 (CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION (STAMP) NO. 13125 OF 2024)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Mutahar Khan, Sachin Mhatre and Ishita S. Kamath, Mhatre Law Associates
Respondent: Public Prosecutor H. S. Venegavkar, Additional Public Prosecutor P. P. Shinde, Advocate Sonal Parab, Rajeev Sawant & Associates, PI Jagdish Panhale from EOW