As per case facts, Rajesh Bansod, owner of fisheries companies, promoted a business promising substantial returns, leading the Complainant and others to invest. It was alleged that Bansod misappropriated funds, ... and cheques for promised returns bounced. The Applicant sought discharge, arguing the money was an "investment" not a "deposit." The Special Court rejected this, prompting the current Revision. The question arose whether funds obtained from investors with a promise of handsome returns for business expansion constitute a "deposit" under the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 (MPID Act) and if a prima facie case under MPID Act and IPC Section 409 exists. Finally, the High Court determined that such amounts fall within the broad definition of "deposit" under the MPID Act and that sufficient material exists for a prima facie case, thus rejecting the Revision Application.