6:23 AM
Wasankar questions applicability of MPID
PRASHANT Wasankar and Abhijeet Choudhar' arrested for defrauding hundreds of investors have questioned the applicability of MPID against them and claimed that investors had suppressed material facts from the investigating machinery. In fact. the alleged transactions were pan of loan transactions for which promissory notes were issued in his individual capacity. Wasankar claimed in his bail application while disputing prosecution theory.
The anticipator' bail applications filed by Bhagyashree wasankar. Kumud Chowdahry were heard by the Special Court on Thursday. Bail applications have also been filed for Prashant Wasankar. Abhijeet Choudhary. hut. since (he investigating officer is yet 10 file his reply on the same, the same were not heard. However, anticipator)' bail applications Hied by Bhagyashree Wasankar and Kumud Choudhary were heard by the Court. Bhagyashree and Kumud are on ad-interim anticipatory bail.
Advocate Prakash Naidu appearing for all the accused pointed out that as per FIR all the complaints were educated persons who willingly invested their money with Wasankar Wealth seeking 25 per cent returns. But they conveniently suppressed the actual transactions, which depicts different picture, he claimed. Persual of the said promissory note reveals that it was part of Loan transactions and he charged the investors with misleading investigating agency and court. Hven assuming but not admitting the prosecution story to be true, raising money against share too did not attract the provisions of MPID act. it was argued. Citing recent judgement of Bombay High Court in Jignesh Shah's case, defence claimed that in a similar matter wherein a scam of alleged Rs 5.600 crores had occurred, the High court had granted bail to the accused by opining that the complainants had given money with a greed to earn easy and fast money inspite of being aware that there may be illegalities in the transaction and when they are duped they cannot cry foul.
About Bhagyashree Wasankar. it was stated that she was a director for approximately 7-8 month and had resigned in 2010 and had never been incharge or responsible for day to day affairs of the company. Like wise Kumud was never even a director of the company. As such they have no role to play in the commission of the alleged offence. The matter is now posted for argument of the state. Advocate Prakash Naidu was assisted by Pankaj Thakre. Joseph Bastian who represented the accused. Advocate Deshmukh represented the state.
The anticipator' bail applications filed by Bhagyashree wasankar. Kumud Chowdahry were heard by the Special Court on Thursday. Bail applications have also been filed for Prashant Wasankar. Abhijeet Choudhary. hut. since (he investigating officer is yet 10 file his reply on the same, the same were not heard. However, anticipator)' bail applications Hied by Bhagyashree Wasankar and Kumud Choudhary were heard by the Court. Bhagyashree and Kumud are on ad-interim anticipatory bail.
Advocate Prakash Naidu appearing for all the accused pointed out that as per FIR all the complaints were educated persons who willingly invested their money with Wasankar Wealth seeking 25 per cent returns. But they conveniently suppressed the actual transactions, which depicts different picture, he claimed. Persual of the said promissory note reveals that it was part of Loan transactions and he charged the investors with misleading investigating agency and court. Hven assuming but not admitting the prosecution story to be true, raising money against share too did not attract the provisions of MPID act. it was argued. Citing recent judgement of Bombay High Court in Jignesh Shah's case, defence claimed that in a similar matter wherein a scam of alleged Rs 5.600 crores had occurred, the High court had granted bail to the accused by opining that the complainants had given money with a greed to earn easy and fast money inspite of being aware that there may be illegalities in the transaction and when they are duped they cannot cry foul.
About Bhagyashree Wasankar. it was stated that she was a director for approximately 7-8 month and had resigned in 2010 and had never been incharge or responsible for day to day affairs of the company. Like wise Kumud was never even a director of the company. As such they have no role to play in the commission of the alleged offence. The matter is now posted for argument of the state. Advocate Prakash Naidu was assisted by Pankaj Thakre. Joseph Bastian who represented the accused. Advocate Deshmukh represented the state.
Posted in: News 2014
0 comments:
Post a Comment