1 2025:CGHC:43121 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1469 of 2022 1. The State of Chhattisgarh Through Senior Superintendent Police, District Durg Chhattisgarh. 2. The State of Chhattisgarh Through Senior Superintendent Police, District Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh) ... Appellants versus Togo Retail Marketing Company Limited/ Togo Health And Social Welfare Their Subsidiaries- I. Bamchi Chemicals Limited Through Its Area Manager- Prashant Majumdar S/o Chinuram Majumdar, And Pijush Majumdar, R/o House No. 5/A, Anushtha Residency, Junwani Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg (Chhattisgarh) II. Basil International Limited Through Its Area Manager- Prashant Majumdar S/o Chinuram Majumdar, And Pijush Majumdar, R/o House No. 5/A, Anushtha Residency, Junwani Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg (Chhattisgarh) III. Nixul Pharmaceuticals Limited Through Its Area Manager- Prashant Majumdar S/o Chinuram Majumdar, And Pijush Majumdar, R/o House No. 5/A, Anushtha Residency, Junwani Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg (Chhattisgarh) IV. Jag Polymers Company Limited Through Its Area Manager- Prashant Majumdar S/o Chinuram Majumdar, And Pijush Majumdar, R/o House ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.08.30 12:19:18 +0530 2 No. 5/A, Anushtha Residency, Junwani Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg (Chhattisgarh) V. Milani Techno Engineering Limited Through Its Area Manager- Prashant Majumdar S/o Chinuram Majumdar, And Pijush Majumdar, R/o House No. 5/A, Anushtha Residency, Junwani Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg (Chhattisgarh) VI. Jio Cyn Mines- 2 Metals Company Limited Through Its Area Manager- Prashant Majumdar S/o Chinuram Majumdar, And Pijush Majumdar, R/o House No. 5/A, Anushtha Residency, Junwani Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg (Chhattisgarh) VII. Petron Minerals And Mines Limited Through Its Area Manager- Prashant Majumdar S/o Chinuram Majumdar, And Pijush Majumdar, R/o House No. 5/A, Anushtha Residency, Junwani Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondents For Appellants/State : Mr. Atanu Ghosh, Dy. Government, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Tridib Bhattacharya, Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 25.08.2025 1. On 20.09.2022 this Court had issued notices on I.A. No. 1 of 2022 which is an application for condonation of delay of 152 days in filing the appeal. Thereafter, the matter was listed on 11.11.2022 and on the request of learned State Counsel, the matter was adjourned to be listed in the first week of January 2023, accordingly the matter was listed on 04.01.2023 and on said date, the matter was again directed to be listed on 3 23.02.2023 and on 23.02.2023, learned counsel appearing for the respondent had prayed for grant of four weeks time to file response. 2. The matter has not yet been formally admitted. 3. For the reasons stated in the application I.A. No. 1 of 2022 delay is condoned. 4. The appeal is admitted for hearing. 5. With the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, the matter is heard finally. 6. This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.02.2022 passed by the Court of learned Special Judge (Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors Interest Act, 2005) Durg, District Durg (C.G.) in Criminal M.J.C. No. 12/2022, whereby the request/application dated 01.02.2022 made by the competent authority vide Memo No. 1112/Pra.Ji.M/2022 for making ad-interim order absolute has been rejected. 7. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the present respondents were arrested and prosecuted in connection with Crime No. 233/2016, registered at Police Station Chawni, District Durg, for offences punishable under Section 420 of the I.P.C., Section 10 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors’ Interest Act, 2005, and Sections 3, 4, and 5 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978. The allegation against the respondents is that, being the Area Managers and in control of the affairs of Togo Retail Marketing Company/Togo Health and Family Social Welfare and its allied companies, namely: I. Bamchi Chemicals Ltd., II.Besil International Ltd., III. Nikisal Pharmaceuticals Ltd., IV. Jaig Polymers Company Ltd., V. Milani Techno Engineering Ltd., VI. Jio Sign Mines & Metals Company Ltd., and VII. Patron Minerals and Mines Ltd., through their managers, Prashant Majumdar and Pijush Majumdar, they hatched a criminal 4 conspiracy and induced the public at large to invest money by promising high returns, creating forged documents, and launching various attractive schemes and fraudulently, they collected deposits from investors, but failed to return the amounts. It was revealed that the respondents’ institution committed cheating and forgery with depositors and embezzled their invested money. Therefore, in the interest of the depositors, the deposited amounts were required to be returned. 8. During investigation, it was found that the accused convened meetings, projected schemes, and induced people to invest in medicine marketing and real estate. They represented that depositors would get shares and, accordingly, large sums were deposited. Receipts and bond papers were issued with specific maturity dates. However, after collecting the money, the accused failed to repay the depositors upon maturity and subsequently, closed their office, misappropriating the entire amount. 9. On the basis of the complaint, it was further revealed that the accused had cheated several depositors by collecting deposits and fraudulently misappropriating the same. The investigation disclosed that the accused persons purchased land in their own names from the amounts deposited by investors. Several properties were traced in the names of Prashant Majumdar and his wife, Smt. Pratibha Majumdar, including: • Land at Halka No. 14, Gram Kohka, Tehsil & District Durg. • Khasra No. 1704/31, Plot No. 16B, area 1500 sq. ft. • Khasra No. 1946/1, area 4150 sq. ft. • Flat No. 204, Khasra No. 1946/6, area 950 sq. ft. • Khasra No. 2047/40, plots measuring 3000 sq. ft. each, in the name of Smt. Pratibha Majumdar. • Land at Gram Junwani, Halka No. 53, Khasra No. 423/31, area 450 sq. ft. 5 • Khasra No. 420/96, area 750 sq. ft. • Khasra No. 60/2 and 61/2, area 1500 sq. ft., situated at Anushtha Residency, Gram Junwani. • Khasra No. 369/92, area 4350 sq. ft., Tehsil Patan. 10. Since the properties were found to have been purchased from investors’ money, proceedings were initiated under Section 10 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors’ Interest Act, 2005, to protect the interests of depositors. 11. After considering the material evidence and documents, and in view of the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors’ Interest Act, 2005, the competent authority, i.e., the District Magistrate, Durg, came to the conclusion that the accused persons had committed cheating and forgery with depositors. It appeared that the Financial Establishment had acted in a calculated manner with the intention of defrauding depositors. Therefore, in order to protect the interests of the depositors and ensure return of their investments, immediate action was required. Accordingly, an interim order for attachment of the properties listed in Enclosures 1 and 2 was passed on 01.02.2022. 12. As per procedure, the aforesaid interim order dated 01.02.2022, passed by the Competent Authority & District Magistrate, Durg, was placed before the Special Court (under the Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors’ Interest Act, 2005), Durg, for confirmation. The matter was registered as Criminal MJC No. 12/2022 (State of Chhattisgarh Vs. Togo Retail Marketing Company Ltd./Togo Institute of Health and Welfare) before the Special Court, Durg. However, the learned Special Court rejected the said proposal vide order dated 28.02.2022, on the ground that as the accused persons had already been discharged from the offence under Section 10 of the Act in Special Criminal Case No. 6 3040/2018 and there was no charge under Section 10 of the Act, which provides for punishment for defaults by a financial establishment. 13. Learned State counsel submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Special Court is bad-in-law and contrary to the facts. The respondents were involved in conspiracy and committed cheating & forgery with the depositors by way of taking deposits under the Togo Retail Marketing Company Limited/Togo Health & Social Welfare. He submits that learned Special Court has failed to appreciate that under Section 7 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors Interest Act, 2005 there was no requirement for filing of criminal prosecution U/s 10 of the Act in order to get the interim order / attachment to be made absolute. Section 7 reads as follows:- Section 7. Attachment of properties on default of return of deposits and power of special Court regarding attachment. - (1) Where the competent authority is satisfied, (i) Upon complaints received from depositors or otherwise, that any financial establishment has fraudulently defaulted. (ii) That any financial establishment is acting in a calculated manner with an intention to defraud the depositors and such financial establishment is not likely to return the deposits, the competent authority may, in order to protect the interest of the depositors of such financial establishment, pass an ad- interim order attaching the money or other property alleged to have been procured either in the name of the financial establishment or in the name of any other person or establishment, or if it appears that such money or other property is not available for attachment or not sufficient for repayment of the deposits, such other property of the said financial establishment or the promoter, partner, director, manager or 7 member of the said financial establishment, as the competent authority may think fit and publish the order in local newspaper of the area. (2) The competent authority shall apply within fifteen days from the date of the order to the special court for making the ad-interim order or attachment absolute. (3) The competent authority may also make an application to any special court or designated court or any other judicial forum established or constituted or entrusted with the powers by any other State Government for adjudicating any issue or subject pertaining to any money or assets of a financial establishment under any similar enactment in respect of money or property or assets belonging to or ostensibly belonging to a financial establishment or any person notified under the Act situated within the territorial jurisdiction of that special court or designated court or any other judicial forum as the case may be, for passing appropriate orders to give effect to the provisions of the Act. (4) Upon receipt of an application under sub-section (2) of Section 7, the special court shall issue show cause notice accompanied by copy of application filed by the competent authority to the financial establishment or any other person whose property is attached that why the order of attachment should not be made absolute. (5) Any person having any interest or claim in the property attached under subsection (1) may apply to the special court within 45 days of the order of attachment for their claim, after receiving the application/objection the special court shall, after giving an opportunity of being heard to the applicants and the competent authority, may make such order as deem fit. (6) For hearing of application/objection provision of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, shall be applicable. 8 (7) If no cause is shown and no objections are made on or before the specified date, the special court shall forthwith pass an order making the ad-interim order of attachment absolute. (8) The special court may at the time of passing the final order pass an order of attachment absolute or in part. In making such order the special court shall not release such part or property so attached as is necessary for repayment to depositors. (9) The special court may, on application by the competent authority, pass such order or issue such direction as may necessary for sale of property attached and for distribution among the depositors of the money realised from such sale. (10) Where an application is made by any person duly authorised or specified by any other State Government under similar enactment empowering him to exercise control over any money or property or assets attached by that State Government, the special court shall exercise all its powers, as if such an application were made under the Act and pass appropriate order or direction on such application, so as to give effect to the provisions of such enactment. 14. Learned State counsel further submits that the learned Special Court failed to appreciate that as per Section 7 of the Act it is competent authority upon being satisfied has to pass an ad-interim order for attachment of properties. After going through the provision of Section 7 the intention of legislature intent to show that the competent authority is to satisfy with regard to the fraudulent default made by financial establishment therefore, mere discharge U/s 10 of the Act by the Special Court in a criminal prosecution would not affect the powers of the competent authority as provided under Section 7 of the Act. Learned Special Court has failed to appreciate that provision of Section 7 provides for attachment of property on default of financial establishment 9 which indicates very object is to ensure the return of dues to the aggrieved / affected depositors and also for securing the assets of the financial establishment from being otherwise disposed of by the management of the financial establishment. Section 10 of the Act is a punishment in a criminal prosecution therefore, the proceeding U/s 7 & 10 is in total different. He also submits that Rule 5 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors Interest Rules, 2015 pertains to complaints made by depositors to the competent authority and the consequent inquiry that may be undertaken by the competent authority for satisfying itself whether or not any financial establishment has fraudulently defaulted. The inquiry contemplated under Rule 5 of Rules 2015 is for the purpose of securing the financial interest of the depositors and the same does not have any bearing on the criminal prosecution initiated against the respondent for offence U/s 10 of the Act 2005. Therefore, the learned Special Court committed vague and serious error in reading something which the legislature has not contemplated under the Act. He also submits that learned Special Court failed to appreciate that on complaint received from the Superintendent of Police District - Durg the competent authority initiateed such inquiry with regard to the fraudulent default committed by the financial establishment / respondents and after going through the statement of the depositors, the document collected by the investigating agencies and after application of mind, the competent authority came to satisfaction that the respondents / financial establishment has fraudulently defaulted which resulted in passing ad- interim order for attachment of the property of the respondents / financial establishment. In view of the above-mentioned submissions the impugned order (Annexure A/1) passed by the learned Special Court deserves to be set aside / quashed and the matter deserves to be remitted back to the Special Court for trial. 10 15. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the submissions made by learned State counsel and supported the impugned order passed by learned Special Court in Criminal M.J.C. No. 12/2022 vide order dated 28.02.2022. He also submits that respondent/Area Manager, namely, Prashant Majumdar has already been died prior to filing of the instant appeal. 16. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment impugned and record of the trial Court. 17. From perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Special Judge, Special Court (Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors’ Interest Act, 2005), Durg, District Durg (C.G.), it transpires that in the Special Criminal Case pending before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Durg, the then Sessions Judge, by order dated 03.11.2017, discharged the accused persons from the charge under Section 10 of the said Act. At that stage, the said Special Criminal Case remained pending before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Durg, for offences punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Chit Fund Act. It further appeared that no revision or appeal was preferred against the order dated 03.11.2017 before this Court, nor was any such order received from this Court. Consequently, the order dated 03.11.2017, passed by the then Special Judge, Durg, attained finality. It also appeared that the Competent Authority, by an interim order dated 01.02.2022, directed the attachment of the land belonging to the respondents. However, on the said date, the respondents/accused had already been discharged from the charge under Section 10 of the Act, nearly four and a half years earlier. In such circumstances, the Competent Authority ought not to have passed the interim order directing 11 attachment of the land recorded in the concerned Khasra numbers in the revenue records. 18. Since the Special Judge had already discharged the respondents/ accused in Crime No. 233/2016 from the charge under Section 10 of the Act, the request made by the Competent Authority under Memorandum No. 1112/Pr.Ji.Man./2022, dated 01.02.2022, could not be sustained. Accordingly, the prayer for confirmation of the interim order of attachment of the aforesaid land belonging to the respondents was rejected by the Court of learned Special Judge (Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors’ Interest Act, 2005) vide order dated 28.02.2022 in Criminal M.J.C. No. 12/2022. 19. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the Court of learned Special Judge (Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors’ Interest Act, 2005), I am of the view that the learned Special Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 20. Consequently, the appeal has no merit, same is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. 21. Let a copy of this judgment and the original record be transmitted to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek