Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (crl.) 1000 of 2007
PETITIONER:
Mohammad Shafa-at Khan and Ors
RESPONDENT:
The National Capital Territory of Delhi and Ors
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02/08/2007
BENCH:
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & D.K. JAIN
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1000 OF 2007
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.3317 of 2004)
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a
learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court dismissing the
application filed by the appellants.
3. Challenge in the petition before the High Court was to the
order passed by a learned Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Tis Hazari Court, dismissing the Criminal Revision
Petition filed by the appellants.
4. Grievances in short were that one M/s Habib
Investments Ltd. incorporated under the Indian Companies
Act, 1956 (in short the ’Act’) advertised in various newspapers
inviting the general public to subscribe in various Fixed
Deposits and saving schemes. Since the schemes were very
lucrative, many innocent persons subscribed to the schemes.
Various persons were appointed as agents on commission
basis to collect the money from subscribers. Many people who
were to get money complained of cheating stating that on the
date of maturity, the certificates issued were not honoured.
First Information Report was lodged with the Police Station,
Lahori Gate, Delhi. Initially, the application was filed for
appointment of Receiver in respect of M/s Habib Group of
Companies and to make an order to attach the properties. Five
properties were attached. A public notice was issued by the
learned Metropolitan Magistrate directing attachment of the
properties. Grievance was made that notwithstanding the
order of attachment the properties were either disposed of or
dealt with in a manner contrary to the order of attachment.
5. The learned Additional District and Sessions Judge
rejected the application filed by the appellants on the ground
that they had no locus standi to file a revision petition. The
High Court by a single line order dismissed the petition filed
before it.
6. During the course of hearing of the appeal, it was
submitted by the non official respondents that they are willing
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
to dispose off the properties to meet the demands of the
creditors. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that
after having violated various orders passed, one of the non-
official respondents has now come to dispose off the properties
to meet the demands of creditors and to wipe out the
liabilities. Ultimately, the people who are the creditors have to
get back their money. Without entering into the matters
relating to the commission of contempt, it would be
appropriate for the concerned Court to work out the modalities
as to how the properties can be sold to get the highest price so
that the dues of the creditors and the liabilities can be
discharged.
7. Accordingly, we dispose of the appeal directing the
concerned Court to work out the details and the modalities
after hearing learned counsel for the parties so that the
amounts due to various persons towards creditors and
liabilities to be discharged, can be paid.
8. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.