9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 1280X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... c. Application Nos.409 of 2003 and 410 of 2003 in MPID Special Case 34 of 2004 arising out of MECR No.1 of 2003 investigated by Economic Offence Wing, Mumbai. The learned Trial Court by a common order dated 19 March 2004 was pleased to dismiss the said Criminal Applications No. 409 of 2003 and 410 of 2003 filed by the Appellants for unsealing and releasing of the premises bearing Nos.502 and 501 respectively situated on the fifth floor of the Sangli Bank Building, 296, Perin Nariman Street, Fort, Mumbai 400 001. 2. The Appellants have questioned the correctness of the said impugned order dated 19 March 2004 by the present Appeals. Though the Appellants have preferred two separate Appeals with respect to two separate premises viz. premises ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cate any material to show that the Appellants were in actual physical possession of the said premises. 5. The Appellants thereafter preferred Miscellaneous Application Nos.409 of 2003 and 410 of 2003 respectively for releasing /unsealing of the aforesaid premises. As stated herein above, the learned Trial Judge has rejected the said Applications by a common order dated 19 March 2004 which is impugned herein. The learned Trial Court while rejecting the said applications by its order dated 19 March 2004 apart from the fact of reiterating the observations made in his earlier order dated 14 July 2003 in Miscellaneous Application Nos. 248 and 247 of 2003, has further held that the investigation was still not completed and the various aspects re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therefore granted leave to the Appellants to join Respondent No.2. After receipt of the notice, Respondent No.2 appeared in the present Appeals and filed an affidavit dated 21 March 2014 which is at page 92 on record. 8. Respondent No.2 by its said affidavit has claimed possession of the premises to be handed over to it in the event this Court is of the opinion that the premises are to be released from the custody of the police authorities. The Appellants thereafter have filed a rejoinder dated 1 April 2014 and reiterated the fact that the Appellants were the lawful tenants of the then Sangli Bank Limited and now are the tenants of Respondent No.2 i.e. ICICI Bank Limited. The Appellants in their rejoinder have further contended that if the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e conclusion reached by the investigating agency as per its report dated 26 February 2014, we are of the opinion that the impugned order dated 19 March 2004 passed by the Learned Special Judge, Greater Mumbai in Miscellaneous Application Nos.409 of 2003 and 410 of 2003 is required to be quashed and set aside and the investigating agency has to be directed to unseal and release the premises Nos.502 and 501 situated on the 5th floor of the Sangli Bank Building, 296, Perin Nariman Street, Fort, Mumbai 400 001. 11. In view of the above discussion, both the Appeals are allowed and the impugned order dated 19 March 2004 passed by the Special Judge, in Miscellaneous Applications Nos.409 of 2003 and 410 of 2003 dated 19 March 2003 is hereby quashe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
