Nishka Srinivas Veluvali
Published On: December 29, 2021 at 19:31 IST
Bombay High Court invoked the Presumption of Guilt under the Section 22(2) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) when the Court was refusing to dismiss the first information report (FIR) opposing a businessman Accused of involvement in the crime syndicate and carrying extortion through death threats.
The Plea was filed by Hemant Banker, who had quizzed the approval granted under Section 23(1) of MCOCA that tells the Court to take the cognisance of and permits the Investigating Agency to probe the Offences under Section 3(1) and Section 3(4) of the MCOCA.
Senior Advocate Aabad Ponda representing Banker argued that the sanction granted did not display proper application of minds by the authority and been granted the sanction in a belated pattern against him.
Nitin Gaware Patil, Advocate appearing for the complainant highlighted that presumption in certain Offences is not significant with regard to present facts.
To which Ponda responded that there are certain conditions or questions that are supposed to be fulfilled before invoking the Presumption.
The Plea was being heard by the Bench of Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice SV Kotwal observed that the Presumption of guilt as mentioned in the Section 22 of MCOCA was important and is valid for this Case.
The Court also noted that there are enough material facts that display the financial transactions involving the complainant where money was being taken by the Applicant’s wife and son. There are also evidences that show threats issued to the complainant and link between the Applicant to those threats according to the Prosecution.
The Court noted that the sanction granted does have any frailty and thus does not require Court interference.
The Complainant Kailash Agarwal, when in Dubai for business purpose was introduced to Rupin Banker, son of the Applicant and had received help by Agarwal and had smooth financial transactions between them.
The Complainant claimed that the Banker and his family had forged his signatures and withdrawn Rs. 35 crores from his bank account in Dubai. He filed a complaint with regard to the same in Dubai too.
Following to which, the Complainant received a call from Vijay Shetty who had threatened him if he had proceeded with any police complaints against the Bankers and dialled to him again and threatening him not to demand repayments from the Bankers.
The Complainant with the help of telephonic call records and audio clips registered a complaint under Section 387 of the Indian Penal Code.