Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Crl.O.P.No.21711 of 2007 is filed praying to quash the entire criminal proceedings in C.C.No.31 of 2001 on the file of the Sub Court (TNPID Act) at Chennai. Crl.O.P.No.35339 of 2007 is filed to quash the entire proceedings at the stage of investigation in Crime No.5 of 2007 on the file of the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Thiruvannamalai.

2. The petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.21711 of 2007 have contended in the petition as follows:-

One V.S.Velliyangiri lodged a police complaint dated 29.2.2000, alleging non payment of fixed deposit amount of Rs.25,000/= on its maturity. Following the said complaint, numerous other depositors started lodging similar complaints before the Inspector of Police EOW-II. The respondent, Deputy Superintendent of Police, EOW-II registered the complaints for the offence under section 5 of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) (for short TNPID) Act, 1997 and under section 120(B), 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The properties of the petitioners ranked as A3, A4 and A6 and that of the other family members were attached by way of interim attachment order dated 7.8.2001. The respondent laid a charge sheet before the Special Court constituted in terms of section 6 of the said Act at Chennai and the same was taken on file in C.S.No.31 of 2001 for the aforementioned offences. Now, the case stands posted to 25.7.2007 for framing of charges. The petitioners challenged the validity of the TNPID Act, but, the same was dismissed by a common order made in a batch of cases in W.P.No.7755 of 2006 by the Full Bench of this court on 2.3.2007. The entire investigation culminated in filing of final report by the respondent and the cognizance taken based thereon by the Special Court are ex facie illegal. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, EOW-II, Coimbatore is not the competent authority. The institution of prosecution is contrary to the scheme, procedure and mandatory requirements contained in the TNPID Act, 1997. The said Act enacted for the purpose of protecting the deposits made by the public in the financial institutions has overriding effect on other laws, customs or usage which are in force in terms of section 14 of the Act. The Government is the competent authority to find out prima facie whether any offence was committed to attract the mischief of the Special Act. The competent authority contemplated under the TNPID Act has been empowered to effect compounding of offences either at pre-prosecution stage or after institution of prosecution case. The competent authority has been directed to render assistance to the Special Public Prosecutor in conducting the case in the Special Court. Therefore, the competent authority alone has got power to institute prosecution and to play the role of prosecutor in trying the offences under the Special Act. There is no express or implied provision in the TNPID Act conferring power on the police official either to investigate or to institute prosecution. By G.O. Ms.No.250 Home Department dated 21.3.2002, the Additional Commissioner for Land Administration was appointed as competent authority. The respondent, without having any jurisdiction or power under the Special Act, has registered the First Information Report and investigated the case and submitted final report before the Special Court. Therefore, the petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.21711 of 2007 pray for quashing the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.31 of 2001 on the file of the Special Court, TNPID Act at Chennai.

6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners in both the matters would submit that section 14 of the TNPID Act starts with non obstante clause and it has got overriding effect over other laws including the provisions under sections 4 and 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The main purpose of the TNPID Act is to protect the investors. Only in cases where the Special Court feels that any financial institution dishonestly intended to defraud the investors, they may be prosecuted under section 5 of the TNPID Act. The court cannot enlarge the scope of legislation, when the language of the provision is plain and unambiguous. A joint reading of sections 13 and 14 of the TNPID Act would exclude the applicability of the Code of Criminal Procedure with respect to the registration of the case and investigation of the matter. Section 4(2) of the TNPID Act makes it clear that the competent authority is empowered to carry out the performances of the Government. If the Special Court satisfies that any particular financial establishment has indulged in defrauding the investors, the Special Court has got suo motu power on the basis of the materials placed by the competent authority to order prosecution against all those persons. Conspicuously, the legislature did not specify that the investigation under Rules 3 to 5 is only for the purpose of attachment of the property of the defrauding financial establishment. Only when the Special Act provides for initiation of prosecution by taking cognizance on the basis of police report, does the police have power to investigate the offences following the procedure under the Special Act and not otherwise. The police would get jurisdiction under sections 4 and 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure only when there is absence of provision in the Special Act restricting the applicability of the investigation procedure contemplated under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Even assuming without admitting that the provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure is applicable, the police has no role in regard to investigation, enquiry and also in conducting trial. There is express exclusion of the role of police in the TNPID Act. If the intention of legislature is to give power to police in the matter of investigation, there is no need for conferring such power of investigation upon the competent authority in the Special Act. The competent authority has been empowered under the TNPID Act to assist the prosecution. The scheme of the TNPID Act is to safeguard the interest of the depositors and not to punish the erring financial institution indiscriminately. Absence of express provision authorising the police officer to investigate the offences would disentitle the police to investigate the offence under the Special Act. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the respondents have taken upon the investigation without any jurisdiction and therefore, quashment of the entire criminal proceedings in both the matters is warranted.

7. Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent would submit that there is no specific provision under the TNPID Act relating to the investigation of the case. The TNPID Act also does not specifically debar the application of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the matter of registration of the crime and investigation of the case. Sections 4 and 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in the absence of any express provision in the Special Act restricting the applicability of the Code of Criminal Procedure, confer ample power on the respondent investigating agency based on the complaint they received from the public. The role of the competent authority appointed under the Special Act is not extended to the investigation of the case. A total misreading is given to the provisions of the TNPID Act to make it appear as though there is a clear exclusion of the applicability of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the matter of investigation of the offence under section 5 of the TNPID Act. It is his last submission that when there is no provision under the TNPID Act to deal with the investigation of the case and there is no express provision excluding the applicability of the provisions under sections 4 and 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the investigation taken upon by the respondents in the respective cases for the offences under the TNPID Act is lawful.

Unacceptable submissions made on the side of the petitioners:-

26. It is true that section 14 of the TNPID Act contains a non obstante clause. The non obstante clause will save only the specific provision made in the TNPID Act limiting the applicability of the other law to the TNPID Act even if such a provision is inconsistent with the special enactment. But, it is a far fetched argument to say that section 14 of the TNPID Act has a overriding effect on the applicability of sections 4 and 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure when no provision has been made as to the investigation and enquiry of the complaints in TNPID Act. Section 4(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure automatically applies to the investigation and enquiries with respect to the complaints under TNPID Act. The sweep of sections 4 and 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not affected by the non obstante clause found in section 14 of the TNPID Act.