QNet Bombay HC
QNet Bombay HC
QNet Bombay HC
SureshThimiris/o.T.K.Thimiri
vs.
TheStateofMaharashtra
C
ou
ANTICIPATORYBAILAPPLICATIONNO.326OF2016
WITH
CRIMINALAPPLICATIONNO.360OF2016
rt
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJUDICATUREATBOMBAY
CRIMINALAPPELLATEJURISDICTION
...Applicant
...Respondent
ig
h
WITH
ANTICIPATORYBAILAPPLICATIONNO.327OF2016
WITH
CRIMINALAPPLICATIONNO.361OF2016
MichaelJosephFerreira
vs.
TheStateofMaharashtra
Applicant
Respondent
om
ba
y
WITH
ANTICIPATORYBAILAPPLICATIONNO.328OF2016
WITH
CRIMINALAPPLICATIONNO.362OF2016
ShinivasRaoVanka
s/o.PattabhiRamaRaoVanka
vs.
TheStateofMaharashtra
Applicant
Respondent
WITH
ANTICIPATORYBAILAPPLICATIONNO.329OF2016
WITH
CRIMINALAPPLICATIONNO.363OF2016
MagaralVeeravalliBalaji
s/o.MagaralVearavalliChellapillai
vs.
TheStateofMaharashtra
Applicant
Respondent
1 / 31
MalcholmNozerDesai
vs.
TheStateofMaharashtra
C
ou
WITH
ANTICIPATORYBAILAPPLICATIONNO.330OF2016
WITH
CRIMINALAPPLICATIONNO.364OF2016
rt
...Applicant
...Respondent
ig
h
Mr.AmitDesai,SeniorAdvocatea/w.Mr.GopalShenoyforthe
ApplicantsinABA.Nos.326and328of2016.
Mr.AshokMundargi,SeniorAdvocatefortheApplicantinABA.
No.329of2016.
Mr.GirishKulkarni,fortheApplicantinABA.No.330of2016.
(AllthecounselfortheapplicantsareinstructedbyMrs.S.J.
Patila/w.Mr.VikramsinghParmar,Mr.KedarPatil,Mr.Santosh
KoreandMs.TruptiBharadi).
Mr.PradeepGharat,SpecialPPa/w.Mrs.P.P.Shinde,forState.
Mrs.SharmilaKaushik,APPfortheStateinA.B.A.328of2016.
Mr.G.S.Anand,thecomplainant/partyinpersonpresent.
MRS.MRIDULABHATKAR,J.
DATE:
6thMAY,2016
ba
y
CORAM:
om
P.C.:
.
2 / 31
316of2013registeredwithOshiwarapolicestation,Mumbai.The
rt
offenceisregisteredattheinstanceofoneGurupreetsinghAnandon
2.
C
ou
16thAugust,2013.
Itisthecaseoftheprosecutionthatintheyear2000one
ig
h
companyunderthenameandstyleGoldQuestInternationalPrivate
Limited.Theapplicants/accusedalsojoinedthesaidgroupin2006.
GoldQuestInternationalPrivateLimitedusedtosalegoldplatedcoins.
In the year 2000 the rate of gold was Rs. 5,000/ per 10 gms.,
ba
y
however, they used to sale the gold plated coins for Rs. 30,000/
thoughthegoldwaslessthan10gms. Thereafter,thepurchaserof
thegoldcoinbecomesamemberofthegroup.Hewasrequiredto
om
makemorepersonsasthememberofthe GoldQuestInternational
Private Limited. On the basis ofthe number of memberswhich he
brings,hewasplacedtogetthecommission.Sohewassupposedto
bringminimumtwopersonsandthehierarchyhadpyramidstructure.
So one member treatedat the right side and secondmember was
treated on the left side. The volume of the said business after
enrollmentofnewmemberincreaseswhen1000unitsarecreditedto
3 / 31
theaccountoftheoldmemberwhicharetreatedequivalenttothe
C
ou
rt
commissionofRs.11,500/.
3.
Itisthecaseprosecutionthatintheyear2003afraudwas
detectedandtheoffencewasregisteredatChennaiagainstthesaid
GoldQuestInternationalPrivateLimitedcompany. Sotheownersof
ig
h
thesaidcompanyrepaideverythingtothememberstowhomthey
havepromisedtopayandtheoffencewascompounded.Hence,the
ba
y
differentnamei.e.QuestNetEnterprise(P)Limited.Theystarted
one Pallava Resorts Private Limited and also launched various
products especially the products by name Biodisck, Chi Pendent,
om
Watches,GoldCoins.TheseproductsweresoldfromminimumRs.
30/toRs.7lacs.Thefalserepresentationwasmadebythecompany
thatthesaidproductBiodiskcuresdiseases.Biodiskistobekeptin
the water and due to molecular effect, the quality of the water is
changedandifthatwaterisconsumed,itwillgivegoodresultand
curesthediseasesincludinglikecancer.
4 / 31
4.
Itisthecaseoftheprosecutionthattheapplicant/accused
rt
SureshThimiriwasappointedasIndianheadandC.E.O.ofQuestNet
C
ou
andactivelyparticipatedintheexpansionofthiscompany.In2008
the offences were registered at Chennai, Andhra Pradesh and
ig
h
Karnatakabutthesaidcompanycontinueditsactivitiesofchitfund
and money laundering till 2012. They stopped the business of
QuestNetEnterprise(P)Limitedcompanybutformedanewcompany
by name Q Net. Under this brand of Q Net, three companies i.e.
ba
y
VanmalaHotels,TravelsandTourismServicesPrivateLtd,Transview
EnterprisesIndiaPrivateLimitedandVihaanDirectSelling(I)Pvt.
Ltd.starteditsbusinesssinceApril,2012.Inthesaidcompany,the
om
applicant/accusedMalcholmDesaiwasholding20%sharesandthe
applicant/accused Michael Ferreira was holding 80% shares. Other
rt
Suresh Thimiri was the C.E.O. since 2010 and became Director of
C
ou
wereissuedbythesaidcompany.However,alltheseholidaypackages
were not given but only few were provided. Many persons also
became members could not get a business as promised by the
ig
h
ba
y
om
complaint.
5.
SeniorCounselandMr.GirishKulkarni,thelearnedcounselforthe
applicantshavesubmittedthattheapplicants/accusedareinnocent.
6 / 31
Theyhaveneithercheatedanybodynorcommittedanyoffence.Itis
rt
submittedthatthecomplainantisamotivatedpersonwhohaslodged
C
ou
ig
h
products and they are categorized sales known for nutrition and
herbalproducts,thetourismholiday,wellnessproductsetc.Mr.Amit
Desai, the learned Senior Counsel, further has submitted that the
applicants/accused neither promoted any investment nor collected
ba
y
depositsinanyscheme.Theyaresellingproductsandthebuyersget
thecommission.Hedescribedthepolicyofthecompanyasifyousell
more, you earn more. It is not a flybynight operation of money
om
launderingbuttheapplicants/accusedareinthebusinesswiththe
largenumberofIndividualRepresentativeswhohaveearnedlotof
money.However,theirstatementsarenotrecordedbythepolice.He
submittedthatpoliceareselectiveintheinvestigation.Hereliedon
thetermsandconditionsofthecontract/policywhicheverymember
has to sign with the company after he gets Independent
Representativenumberandthemembership.Hesubmittedthatthe
7 / 31
companyhasalsorefundpolicyandthepersonswhodidnotreceive
C
ou
company.Thecompanyhasrefundednearly95100Crores.
rt
theserviceorarenotsatisfiedwiththeservice,theycanapproachthe
6.
Insupportofhiscontention,the learnedseniorcounsel
QuestInternational
Private
ig
h
Limitedvs.StateofTamilNaduandOthers,(2014)15Supreme
CourtCases,235wherethecompanyhasfiledPetitionforquashing
ba
y
thefirstinformationreportandallowedtheAppeal.Hefurtherrelied
onthejudgmentof StateofWestBengalandOthresvs.Swapan
KumarGuhaandOthers,1982SupremeCourtCases(Cri)283.So
om
alsointhecaseof StateofWestBengalandOthersvs.Sanchaita
Investments and Others, 1982 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 283.
8 / 31
rt
Others,(2011)1SupremeCourtCases694andJogindarsinghvs.
C
ou
U.PandOthers,1994(4)SCC260.ThelearnedseniorcounselMr.
AmitDesaihassubmittedthatinanycasearrestisnotrequiredand
arrestisnotjustifiedespeciallywhenthepunishmentislessthan7
years.Inordertosubstantiatehissubmissions,hereliedon Arnesh
ig
h
Kumarvs.StateofBiharandAnother,(2014)8SupremeCourt
Case,273.HealsoreliedonAmwayIndiaEnterprisesvs.Unionof
India,2007SCCOnLineAP494.
Thelearnedseniorcounselhassubmittedthatsincethe
ba
y
7.
om
lawonthepointofarresthaschangedasthepoliceofficermustbe
satisfiedaboutnecessityandjurisdictionofsucharrestonthebasisof
9 / 31
thecaseofBhadreshBipinbhaiShethvs.StateofGujrat,2015SCC
rt
OnLine771. ItwasthecaseunderSection438ofCodeofCriminal
principlesofgrantofanticipatorybail.
8.
C
ou
Procedure wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the
ig
h
submittedthatChiPendentandBiodiskweresenttoBhabhaAtomic
ResearchCenterforradioactivitytestwhichwasconductedon20 th
ba
y
om
personswhowereinterestedingettingdegreeofM.B.A.Theyhave
statedthataspertherepresentationmadebeforethem,theypaidthe
10 / 31
irrespectiveoftheireffortstheycouldnotgetaccessandcouldnot
rt
completethedegreeandthustheywerecheated.Hesubmittedthat
C
ou
VanmalaHotels,TravelsandTourismServicesPrivateLtd.andPallava
ResortsPrivateLimitedhavecreatedaWebsiteandtravelpackages.
The commission was not paid on the products though the new
memberswereintroduced.TheregisteredofficeofVanmalaHotels,
ig
h
TravelsandTourismServicesPrivateLimitedcompanyisacallcenter.
He further submitted that in December, 2014 the Ministry of
ba
y
Limitedasthefraudcompanies.Thusmoneyiscollectedonlineand
though the Independent Representative number is given, actual
moneywasnotavailableforwithdrawal.Saidmoneywaslaundered
om
around135Crores.
9.
Thelearnedspecialprosecutorfurthersubmittedthatin
the year 2014 the complaint was filed against Q Net Limited and
QuestNetEnterprise(P)LimitedcompaniesofQ1Groupastheyhave
11 / 31
cheatedmanypersons.HesubmittedthatQ1GroupisfromMalaysia
rt
and through the said group these activities are carried out under
C
ou
differentnameandstyle.Therearemultiplebankaccounts,thereis
mensreatocheatthepeopleandthus,thecompaniesi.e.Transview
EnterprisesIndiaPvt.Ltd.andVanmalaHotels,TravelsandTourism
ServicesPvt.Ltd.andVihaanDirectSelling(I)Pvt.Ltd.cheatedmany
ig
h
personsandthatiscontinuedtilltoday.Thereismoneytrailwhichis
disclosing money level circulation scheme. In support of his
contentions,hereliedonthefollowingauthorities:
1) State of Gujrat vs. Mohanlal Jitamaljiporwal and
Another,1987AIR1321.
ba
y
2)NarayananRajagopalanvs.TheStateofMaharashtra,in
Cri.A.B.A.No.1416of2013dated2ndApril,2014.
3)AshokBahirwanivs.TheStateofMaharashtra,inCri.
om
th
A.B.A.No.1083of2012dated19March,2013.
4)AmwayIndiaEnterprisesvs.UnionofIndia,2007(4)
ALT808.
th
730of2013,S.C.dated9May,2013.
12 / 31
st
AppealNos.12861287of2015dated1October,2015.
rt
8)Sudhirvs.TheStateofMaharashtraandAnother,Cri.
9)K.K.Baskaranvs.StateofTamilNaduandOthers,Cri.
C
ou
th
AppealNo.2341of2011dated4March,2011.
11)StateofMaharashtravs.SomNathThapa,1996AIR
10.
ig
h
1744.
economicoffendersruintheeconomyoftheStateandtheeconomic
offencesarecommittedwithcoolanddeliberatemannerregardlessto
ba
y
theconsequencesonthecommunity.Hereliedonthejudgmentof
Mohanlal Jitamaljiporwal (supra). He further relied on the
judgmentoftheDivisionBenchinthecaseofTransviewEnterprise
om
IndiaPrivateLimitedvs.TheStateofMaharashtra&Anr. ofthis
th
Courtpassedon 12
February,2014 in CriminalApplicationNo.
844of2014 wheretheapplicantinTransviewEnterprisesIndia(P)
Ltd.hasfiledanapplicationfordefreezingtheaccountswhichwas
refused by this Court. He also placed reliance on Amway India
th
Enterprise vs. Union of India daed 19
July, 2007. (2007 SCC
OnlineA.P.494). Hefurtherreliedonthejudgmentinthecaseof
13 / 31
KuriachanChackoandOthersvs.StateofKerala,SupremeCourt,
rt
th
inCri.AppealNo.1044of2008passedon10
July,2008. This
C
ou
matterwasagainsttheorderofdischargeoftheaccusedpersonsfor
theoffencespunishable underSections4and5readwithsections
2(e) and 3 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes
(Banning)Act,1978.Hereliedonthejudgmentof GautamKundu
ig
h
vs.ManojKumar,inCri.AppealNo.1706of2015arisingoutof
SLP(Cri.)No.6701of2015. Inthesaidcase,thetrialCourthas
rejectedbailunderSection439ofCodeofCriminalProcedurewhere
theaccusedwasprosecutedfortheoffencepunishableunderSection
ba
y
3ofPreventionofMoneyLaunderingAct,2002.Inthesaidcase,the
CourthasreferredSection45ofPrizeChitsandMoneyCirculation
Schemes(Banning)Act,1978andwhichhasoverridingeffectonthe
om
generalprovisionsoftheCodeofCriminalProcedure.
11.
ThecomplainantGurupreetsinghAnandwhowaspresent
intheCourtwantedtoaddresstheCourtandsoinallfairness,the
opportunitywasgiventohim.Hewasheard.Hehasalsofiledthe
intervention application. He stated that QuestNet Enterprise (P)
Limited carried out their business and after the prosecution of
14 / 31
QuestNetEnterprise(P)Limited,theyintroducedthebusinessplan
rt
under the name and style Q Net Limited. He submitted that the
C
ou
companygivesrosypictureof'moneybackscheme'tothepublicat
large. However, once a person become a member, he is called as
ig
h
applicants/accusedandtheotherrepresentativesarenotaccessible
andfinallythepersonlosehismoney.Hesubmittedthatthesame
personsarerotatedfromQuestNetEnterprise(P)LimitedtoVanmala
Hotels, Travels and Tourism Services Pvt. Ltd. and Vihaan Direct
ba
y
Selling(I)Pvt.Ltd.Hesubmittedthatthepaymentswerepromised
andthepartnershipwasasperthebusinessplan.Thecompensation
promisedbytheQNetLimitedwasonweeklybasis.Hesubmitted
om
thatasGovernmentfoundthatthereisafraudofCroresofrupees,
Government agency started to investigate the matter and through
Questions(FAQ)inthebusinessofVihaanDirectSelling(I)Pvt.Ltd.
rt
company.Soalsothegenealogyreport.Hesubmittedthattheyare
12.
C
ou
attractingpeoplebygivingfalsepromises.Hence,thereischeating.
The learnedcounselfortheapplicants/accusedinreply
ig
h
policeandthedetailsoffinancialtransactionsalsosuppliedtothe
police.Thereisnocaseofmoneylaundering.Onlyfewcroreshave
goneoutofIndia.ThelearnedseniorcounselMr.Desaihassubmitted
that direct marketing is promoted by Government of India and
ba
y
om
explainedthefactstothepublicatlargeandthepersonswhobecame
members.Acontractisenteredbetweenthem.Theentirebusinessis
legalsothatpeoplecanearnmoremoneyandquickmoneyanditis
notdependentonenrollmentofmembersbutonthesell.Hereliedon
thejudgmentinthecaseof SanchaitaInvestments (supra) under
PrizeChitsandMoneyCirculationSchemes(Banning)Act,1978.He
submitted that in this scheme, income is on the basis of sale of
16 / 31
products.Itisnotcompulsoryforanypersontobecomememberand
rt
enrollinit.HesubmittedthatearlieritwasGoldQuestInternational
C
ou
PrivateLimited andifatallthereissomefaultorillegalityfoundin
the scheme, then the person can change the scheme as per the
requirementofthelawanditcanbecorrectedandthereforeanew
schemecanbeintroduced.Therefore,thereisdifferencebetweenQ
ig
h
ba
y
om
subsequentlysetasidebytheHon'bleSupremeCourtastheparties
enteredintoacompromise.AspertherequirementofSection2(c)of
M.P.I.D.Act,itisnecessarytocollectdeposits.Inthepresentcase,no
depositsarecollected.
17 / 31
13.
14.
C
ou
SupremeCourtinsomeimportantcases.
rt
usefultoculloutandreproducetheratiolaiddownbytheHon'ble
caseofAmwayIndia(supra)waswhetherthebusinessactivitybeing
ig
h
carriedoutbythePetitionercomesunderthePrizeChitsandMoney
Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 and the other issue was
ba
y
weredismissedbytheSupremeCourtanditwasheldthattherights
of seizure and search on various places are legal. The Hon'ble
SupremeCourtinthecaseofAmwayIndia(supra)hasdiscussedand
om
analyzedmoneycirculationschemeandwhereitisheldasunder:
Money circulation scheme means any scheme, by
whatevernamecalled,forthemakingofquickoreasymoney,
or for the receipt of any money or valuable thing as the
consideration for a promise to pay money, or any event or
contingencyrelativeorapplicabletotheenrollmentofmembers
intothescheme,whetherornotsuchmoneyorthingisderived
fromtheentrancemoney ofthemembersofsuchschemeor
periodicalsubscriptions.
18 / 31
15.
C
ou
JaganMohanReddy(supra)whereinitisobservedasunder:
rt
ig
h
therebyposingseriousthreattothefinancialhealthof
country.
16.
Hon'bleSupremeCourtheldasunder:
ba
y
om
19 / 31
framedunderSection420readwith34ofIndianPenal
C
ou
17.
rt
Codeatthesaidstage.
activityandapyramidstructureofsuchschemeispreparedsothat
the members are promised to get money on purchase and sale of
products. The money circulation or multilevel marketing pyramid
ig
h
structureasdescribedaboveisacognizableoffenceunderPrizeChits
andMoneyCirculationSchemes(Banning)Act,1978.Aletterdated
1stJanuary,2015issuedbytheChiefGeneralManager,R.B.I.isplaced
beforeme,whereinR.B.I.hascautionedthepublicagainstmultilevel
ba
y
marketingactivitiesasthepeopleduetoattractiveoffersarefalling
preytothesaidschemesandfinallytheysufferlosses.However,the
offenceunderPrizeChitsandMoneyCirculationSchemes(Banning)
om
Act,1978isbailable.
18.
20 / 31
rt
specialisedsubjects,Courtsnotembarkuponviewsofhalf
litinfallibilityandrejectwhateconomistsorsocialscientists
C
ou
perforce,mustguideitselfandpronounceuponthematter
ig
h
fromtheconstitutionalangle,sincethefinalverdict,where
constitutionalcontraventionsarecomplainedof,belongsto
thejudicialarm.
19.
InthecaseofBhadreshSheth(supra)thechargesforthe
ba
y
offencespunishableunderSections506(2)and376ofIndianPenal
Codeandthecomplaintwasgivenintheyear2001andafter17years
om
theSupremeCourttriedthematterforcancellationofanticipatory
bail. The Court referred the principles laid down in the cases of
21 / 31
rt
fallingunderthecategoryofeconomicoffencesandthereforeithasof
C
ou
20.
ig
h
manywitnesses,whoclaimedthattheyhavebeencheatedunderthe
scheme launched by Qnet. I have also considered the conclusive
ba
y
om
whichthebusinessisconducted,Ihavedoubtwhetheroffenceunder
section3oftheMPIDAct,whichisanonbailablesection,canbe
attractedornot?
22 / 31
21.
rt
applicants/accusedareprosecuted,cheatingistheonlynonbailable
C
ou
offenceundersection420oftheIPC.Whilehearingthecaseofthe
prosecutionandthedefence,mymainquerytoboththepartiesand
ig
h
intentiontocheatshouldbepresentinthemindoftheaccused. If
mens rea is absent, then, even if other person or the complainant
sufferslossesinthebusiness,then,itisnotcheating.Then,itcanbe
simplylabelledasafinancialbusinesstransactionwhichdidnotfetch
ba
y
om
moneyoreasymoneyisalsonotanoffence.Therefore,ifsuchproject
islaunched,thatitselfcannotbeanoffence.Thereisnocompulsion
orforceoperatedonthepublictobeamemberofthebusinessor
participateinthebusiness.Thus,theoptionwasalwaysopentothe
aggrievedpersonstosaynotothescheme.However,thethingsare
23 / 31
notasstraightastheyareperceivedonthesurface. Assumingthat
rt
C
ou
theviewthatinthemidway,theintentionoftheapplicants/accused,
ig
h
financiallossesandtheyarenotsatisfiedwiththeproducts.Theclaim
thatthewellnessproductsi.e.,BiodiskandChiPendentaremedicinal
ba
y
andspiritualproducts,isafterall,amatteroffaith. However,the
applicants/accused have launched these wellness products with
ulterior motive and with correct judgment of vulnerability of the
om
people.Theholidaypackageswhichweresoldoroffered,withoutany
choicelefttothebuyers.TheentirebusinesswasInternetbasedand,
therefore,thepersonswhoareresponsiblei.e.,thetopbrassi.e.,the
applicants/accused,werenotapproachabletothepersonswhowere
aggrieved. Thenatureofthebusinesswasknittedintheinterestof
theDirectorsandshareholdersinsucha mannerthatthepersons
whoareatthelowerlevelofthepyramidcannotgetanyaccesstoput
24 / 31
rt
contacted,incentivesoffered,theworkshopswereconducted,arebest
22.
C
ou
examplesofinducement.
Respondingtothesubmissionsoftheprosecutionthatthe
IRsoflowerlevelofpyramidaredoingaggressivemarketingandthey
ig
h
arethreateningandpesteringpeopleforsellingtheproductsandfor
becoming members, Mr.Desai argued that the applicants/accused
cannotbevicariouslyliable. Theyhavestartedtheschemewitha
nobleobjectandtheycannotbeheldresponsibleforsomeoverreach
ba
y
om
suchpressurisingtacticswhichareusedbytheIRsonthelowerlevel
of the pyramid, material is brought before me to show that many
workshopsandsessionsareconductedregularlyatvariousplacesby
the company. Undoubtedly, all these workshops and sessions and
trainingcentresarerunatthebehestoftheapplicants/accusedbythe
Directorsandshareholdersi.e.,theapplicants/accusedandthus,they
have control either directly or remotely, over the dishonest
25 / 31
inducementandaggressivemarketingwhichisthemodusoperandiof
C
ou
rt
thiscompany.
23.
ig
h
ofIndiaisthedutyoftheCourt.However,itisalwaysqualifiedwith
reasonable restrictions. A particular business fetching profit to
handfulofindividualscannotbecarriedoutatthecostofotherswho
sufferlossesduetodeceitfulinducement.
Thestatementsofthewitnessesrevealthatthedishonest
ba
y
24.
concealmentoftruefactsandtherealbusinessofthecompany.The
persons,whodominateandnavigatethewilloftheothers,havean
om
advantagewhichtheycanturntotheiraccount.Inthepresentcase,
suchadvantageisgainedundoubtedlybydishonestlyandindeceitful
manner. Thereareinstancesofdishonestconcealmentoffactsi.e.,
genuinenatureoftheproductsandbythepersonsworkingforthe
companyi.e.,I.Rsandwithintentiontoearnwrongfulgaintothem
and the company and wrongful loss to others. The motto of the
company 'sell more, earn more' appears very attractive and
26 / 31
innocuous.However,thismottoisfullycamouflaged.Thecompany
C
ou
mottois'sellmoreearnmore'byfoolingpeople.
rt
standsonabasicstatementthatpeoplecanbefooled.Thus,thetrue
25.
applicantsaccusedthatsellingtheproductataveryhighpriceisnot
ig
h
directed to give all the names and details of the relatives, phone
numbersoftheiracquaintances,referencesandthereafterthepersons
ba
y
in the higher level, who are given some positions, contact these
acquaintances and references and the chain is multiplied. The
om
whereapersonisfooledandthenheistrainedtofoolotherstoearn
money.Forthatpurpose,workshopsareconductedwherestudyand
businessmaterialisprovidedwithajuggleryofwords,promisesand
dreams.Thus,thedeceitandfraudiscamouflagedunderthenameof
emarketingandbusiness.
27 / 31
Mr.Desai,thelearnedSeniorCounselfortheApplicants,
rt
26.
C
ou
hassubmittedthatthelawundersection438oftheCodeofCriminal
Procedurehasdevelopedandchangedalottilltoday.TheSupreme
Court has taken a veryliberalviewandahumanisticviewon the
ig
h
BipinbhaiSheth(supra) andsubmittedthatinthecasesespecially
wherethepunishmentislessthan7years,theSupremeCourthas
ba
y
CriminalProcedureisenacted.
27.
arrest,rathertocheckthepolicemaniaofarrest,hasenactedsection
om
down guidelines directing the police how to give notice and the
person should get opportunity to put up his explanation. In the
present case, the offence is registered in the year 2013. The
applicants/accused were granted interim prearrest bail by the
learnedSessionsJudgeandthus,theapplicants/accusedhavevisited
28 / 31
thepolicestationonanumberofoccasionsandgaveexplanationto
rt
thepolice,whichtheywantedto.However,thepolicehaveopposed
C
ou
their applications for prearrest bail in the Sessions Court and the
SessionsCourthasdeniedthesame.Itshowsthatsection41Awasin
fact fully complied with. This shows that the police whatever
explanation and information they received from the
ig
h
applicants/accusedarenotsatisfied.Imadesearchingqueriestothe
learned Prosecutor in order to clear the doubt as to whether the
policewantedtoarresttheapplicantaccusedonlyoutofvengenace
ortheyhavemadeitaprestigeissue.However,aftergoingthrough
ba
y
the record, which is placed before the Court and the submissions
madebyboththeparties,Ifoundthatsuchelementisabsent.There
maybemisdirectedoverenthusiasmonthepartoftheprosecutionin
om
find out the money trail and from where the products are
manufactured, also to check the correct addresses, bank accounts,
networking of the company, etc. Moreover, by this deceitful
inducement,largenumberofpeople,maybeapproximately2.5lakh
people, are trapped in this moneytree planting business and
29 / 31
everyday,asitisanongoingactivity,morepeopleareacceptingthese
C
ou
rt
attractivecamouflagedoffers.
28.
ig
h
Procedure,Iamnotinclinedtoprotecttheaccused.Itwon'tbeoutof
placetomentionthatsuchcirculationisrequiredtobestopped.Itis
ba
y
om
thisactivity.
29.
rejected.CriminalApplicationsforinterventionsstanddisposedof.
30.
applicants/accusedseekscontinuationofearlierinterimrelieffora
periodof10weeksastheapplicants/accusedintendtochallengethe
30 / 31
orderbeforethehonourableSupremeCourt.LearnedProsecutorhas
C
ou
continuedtill15thJuly,2016.
rt
om
ba
y
ig
h
(MRIDULABHATKAR,J.)
31 / 31