Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(iv) On 02.01.2015, the SHO, Pedapadu Police Station, West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh, registered a case against M/s. Agri Gold Farm Estates India Private Limited under sections 120B, 420 IPC, section 5 of Andhra Pradesh Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999 (for short, APPDFE Act) and Section 45 of the RBI Act and Sections 3,4 and 5 of Prize Chit & Money Circulation (Banning) Act, 1978 and the Government of Andhra Pradesh by invoking the provisions of Section 3 of RC,J W.P.Nos.4043, 4044 of 2019, 7987, 9441 & 16770 of 2021 & 2899 , 5183 of 2022 & 11520 of 2023 the APPDFE Act, 1999 issued G.O.Ms.No.22 and G.O.Ms.No.23 of Home (Arms & SPF) Department, dated 20.02.2015, G.O.Ms.No.73 of Home (Gen A2) Department, dated 05.06.2015, G.O.Ms.No.21 of Home (General-A2) Department, dated 29.02.2016 and G.O.Ms.No.39, Home (General-A) Department, dated 15.02.2019 and attached the properties of the Company. Thereafter, the CID, Andhra Pradesh filed petitions before the Special Court, Eluru designated to deal with the offences under APPDFE Act and the Special Court, Eluru passed orders on 23.09.2015, attaching all the properties of the company covered under G.O.Ms.22 and 23, dated 20.02.2015 and G.O.Ms.No.73 dated 05.06.2015.

(i) The Agri Gold Construction Company, which constructed Helapuri Apartment, Fathebada at Eluru, is one of the accused company in Crime No.3 of 2015 of Pedapadu Police Station. The said property was attached under Section 3 of the APPDFE Act vide G.O.Ms.No.23, dated 22.02.2015 and the said attachment was made absolute by the Special Court-cum-PDJ, Eluru on 23.09.2015. Merely because the flats in the subject Apartment were purchased prior to registration of Cr.No.3 of 2015 of Pedapadu Police Station does not absolve the fact that the subject property was purchased RC,J W.P.Nos.4043, 4044 of 2019, 7987, 9441 & 16770 of 2021 & 2899 , 5183 of 2022 & 11520 of 2023 and constructed by an accused company in the said crime with the amounts collected from the depositors as such the subject apartment is one of the derived proceeds of crime. The petitioner Association of flat owners, did not raise any objection before the Special Court-cum-Principal District Judge, Eluru before the attachment of the said property was made absolute vide order dated 23.09.2015. The inadvertent mention of note in G.O.Ms.No.23, dated 22.02.2015 that except the plots that were registered in the respective Sub Registrar Offices before the Criminal cases were registered i.e. on 01.03.2015 at Pedapadu, West Godavari District, the rest of the land shall cover under the above G.O., was subsequently remedied by way of issuance of G.O.Ms.No.19, dated 09.02.2021. Therefore, the petitioner association cannot contend that the flats of Fortune Helapudi Apartment are outside the purview and scope of investigation under the APPDFE Act, 1999. The provisions of the Act make no distinction as regards the amassment of properties by the accused of conducting its business in violation of Section 5 of the Act,1999 read with the other provisions of IPC. The entire property and the transactions which have been conducted by the accused company would be within the zone of proceeds of attachment by the competent authority under the provisions of the Act in order to secure its administration and disposal in accordance RC,J W.P.Nos.4043, 4044 of 2019, 7987, 9441 & 16770 of 2021 & 2899 , 5183 of 2022 & 11520 of 2023 with law to meet the pending claims of the depositors whose monies have not been refunded in accordance with the agreed terms by the accused company. The amended G.O.Ms.No.19, dated 09.02.2021 omitting the note to G.O.Ms.No.23 dated 22.02.2015 has been placed before the Special Court by way of memo and the same was taken on record by Special Court and pursuantly made the orders of attachment absolute. The amendment to G.O.Ms.No.23, dated 15.02.2015 issued vide G.O.Ms.No.19, dated 09.02.2021 was not placed before the Court for its consideration and thus the observations made in the decision in 2021(1)ALT 599(AP) cannot be considered as a direction to exclude the schedule property from the purview of investigation by the competent authority and the proceedings before the Special Court under the APPDFE Act, 1999.

(ii) The objectives of the APPDFE Act inter alia include securing the monies which are amassed by the accused under the provisions of the Act, so as to secure the means to meet the obligations flowing from the deposits collected from the depositors. The same can only be secured by disposing of the property so secured by the accused by deploying the deposits received from the depositors under Section 10 of the Act r/w. the Rules framed thereunder. The said proceedings of the administration of RC,J W.P.Nos.4043, 4044 of 2019, 7987, 9441 & 16770 of 2021 & 2899 , 5183 of 2022 & 11520 of 2023 property and the auction of the said property so as to primarily first cater to the meeting of the payment dues to the respective depositors or securing the return of the monies deposited by them are conducted under the supervision of the designated special Court under the provisions of the APPDFE Act,1999. The allegations against the accused in crime registered emanate from the violation of Section 5 of the APPDFE Act,1999, which is not a schedule offence under PMLA Act. Therefore, the objectives sought to be achieved under the State Act cannot be frustrated by the supervening orders of attachment issued under the PMLA more specifically, in the context of the primary objective of the State Act inter alia to mitigate the hardship of depositors who have suffered on account of the default of the accused in repaying the dues arising from such deposits.

41. In view of the above, though the PML Act is a central legislation having overriding effect that too subsequent in point of time to the State legislation i.e. APPDFE Act, the interest of the depositors would well be subserved if the properties of the accused firm remained attached under APPDFE Act so that there may be equitable distribution among the depositors.

42. At this juncture, it cannot be lost sight of the fact that Division Bench of this Court in PIL No. 193 of 2015 filed inter alia to direct respondent nos.3,4 and 8 therein to conduct in depth investigation through Central Bureau of investigation (CBI) for punishing the culprits forthwith, after considering the relevant provisions of the APPDFE Act, had opined that the Special Court which is having jurisdiction to make equitable distribution of the money realised, out of the property purchased, among the depositors. From this, it is clear that, Division Bench of this Court, in view of the provisions of the APPDFE Act, would have thought it fit that the Special Court is competent to deal with the matters for distribution of proceeds of the property among the depositors. Lest, the Division Bench of RC,J W.P.Nos.4043, 4044 of 2019, 7987, 9441 & 16770 of 2021 & 2899 , 5183 of 2022 & 11520 of 2023 this Court in the above PIL would have either directed CBI or Enforcement Directorate to probe into the matter. This also would reinforce the observations made above by this Court that continuance of proceedings in Special Court under APPDFE Act would subserve the interest of the depositors.