Supreme Court - Daily Orders
V Balakrishnan vs Competent Auth. And Divisional Revenue ... on 2 February, 2015
Bench: Dipak Misra, Prafulla C. Pant
SLP(Crl) 7429/14
1
ITEM NO.1 COURT NO.6 SECTION IIA
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
CRL.M.P. No.22974/2014 In
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.7429/2014
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 17/06/2014
in CRLOP No. 7007/2013 passed by the High Court of Madras at
Madurai)
V BALAKRISHNAN AND ANR Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
COMPETENT AUTH. AND DIVISIONAL Respondent(s)
REVENUE OFICER AND ORS
(For modification of court's order dated 8.10.2014 and office
report)
Date: 02/02/2015 This application was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANT
For Petitioner(s)
Mr. S. Mahendran, AOR
For Respondent(s)
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
The learned Special Judge, under the Tamil Nadu Signature Not Verified Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Digitally signed by Chetan Kumar Date: 2015.02.02 16:25:53 IST Reason: Establishments) Act, 1997, at Madurai, on 12th September, 2012, in I.A. No.11 of 2009 in C.C. No.4 of 2008, after hearing the counsel for the parties, passed the following SLP(Crl) 7429/14 2 order:
“In the result, the petition is allowed and 2nd respondent is directed to enquire or investigate the petitioner's request in a detailed manner in accordance with law, and if it is found to be a good case, the 2 nd respondent is directed to send a proposal to the Government in accordance with Section 3(ii) of TNPID Act.” Though the said order was passed by the Special Judge, yet the same was not implemented and the trial proceeded.
Being grieved by the said order, the petitioners approached the High Court in Crl.O.P. (MD) No.7007 of 2013. The High Court, instead of dealing with the matter, as is manifest, has permitted the petitioners to move the court of learned Special Judge.
As the said order did not sub-serve the purpose and mitigate the grievance of the petitioners, they have approached this Court in the present special leave petition.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that to meet the ends of justice, the learned Special Judge should await the report as called for by him and, thereafter, proceed with the trial. In our considered opinion, the learned Special Judge had passed an order which would have really helped collection of the money under the Act and also established the truth. Therefore, it is directed that the learned Special Judge shall see to it that the direction issued by him, which has been reproduced herein-above, should be implemented within a period of two months hence. He shall issue a direction to the investigating agency to file the requisite report within the SLP(Crl) 7429/14 3 said period. The trial of the case shall proceed as per law after obtaining the report.
The special leave petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
(Chetan Kumar) (H.S. Parasher)
Court Master Court Master