H. C. SHIV 911.app1447.18.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1447 OF 2018 Yogendra P. Trivedi … Appellant. V/s. The State of Maharashtra … Respondent Mr. Ashwin Shete with Vignesh Iyer i/b Jayakar & Partners for the Petitioner. Ms. Supriya Kak APP for the Respondent-State. Mr. Arjun Padwale, API, E.O.W., Mumbai present. CORAM : BHARATI DANGRE & SHYAM C. CHANDAK, JJ. DATE : 19th NOVEMBER, 2025 P.C:- 1) The present Appeal filed by Accused No.8 is against the order dated 15th October, 2018 passed by the Designated Court under the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors Act, 1990 (“MPID Act”) in MPID Case No.4 of 2014, while dealing with application filed by the Applicant/Appellant seeking discharge (Exh.35). The discharge application pleaded that he is a Senior Advocate practicing in the Apex Court for more than 50 years and he has been referred to as a Director in Birla Power Solutions Ltd. by the complainant upon whose complaint an offence came to be registered invoking the provisions of Sections 406, 420, 409, 477-A, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the M.P.I.D. Act, 1999. It is by way of the 1/3 HEMANT CHANDERSEN SHIV Digitally signed by HEMANT CHANDERSEN SHIV Date: 2025.11.20 19:02:41 +0300 H. C. SHIV 911.app1447.18.doc supplementary charge-sheet he came to be arraigned as an accused. The Application specifically plead that though he was a Director of accused No.1-company, which accepted deposits, he immediately resigned on 7/11/2012 and he was a Professional, Independent and Non Executive Director and had no knowledge of the transactions, that form the part of the charge-sheet as he was not involved in the transactions. Further, it is also his pleaded case that being an independent Director, he was never involved in the day-to-day activities of the company and the decision making process but on account of his expertise, was appointed as a Director and was not even paid any remuneration. This stand adopted in the application was taken into consideration by the Special Court and in contra, the Special Public Prosecutor urged before the Court that the accused was active participant in the Board of Directors’ meetings and he had even signed the resolutions as directed. It was also urged that the category of a Director is not defined under the MPID Act and since he signed the resolutions, as a Chairman of accused company in absence of accused – Yash Birla, he is involved into the conduct of the affairs of the company. 2) On perusal of the impugned order, which has appreciated the rival contentions and recorded that the Applicant was a Director in Birla 2/3 H. C. SHIV 911.app1447.18.doc Power Solution Ltd. and Birla Cotsyn (India) Ltd. but he was also a Director in 21 other companies as per record of the register of companies. Since, we find that if the amount has been accepted by the company by way of deposit, at the time when he was a Director, it cannot be said that merely at the time when the amount was due and payable, he was not a Director will not absolve him of liabilities. 3) In any case, the extent and question of liabilities being fastened upon him being as a Director of the company and the nature of his involvement would be a matter of trial and therefore, we do not find any legal infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Special Judge, who has refused to grant him discharge. Upholding the impugned order, the Appeal is dismissed. (SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.) (BHARATI DANGRE, J.) 3/3