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.