IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 24TH MAY 2011 / 3RD JYAISHTA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 4495 of 2010(F) ------------------------------------- [CRIME NO.1084/10 OF KAYAMKULAM POLICE STATION, ALLEPPEY DISTRICT] ............. PETITIONER/A3: ------------------------ MARY OOMMEN, AGED 46, W/O.BIJU MATHEWS, MANAGER, M/S.MUTHOOT FINCROP LTD., KAYAMKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.UDAYABHANU. RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE S.I. OF POLICE, KAYAMKULAM POLICE STATION (CRIME NOS.1084/10), REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. MANU. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.4495 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of May, 2011. ORDER Petitioner is the third accused in Crime No.1084 of 2010 of Kayamkulam Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 17 and 18 of the Money Lenders Act (for short, “the Act”). Prosecution case is that the first accused deceitfully obtained 1.75 kgs. of gold ornaments and pledged it with the Kayamkulam branch of the second accused and obtained a loan. While so, on 18.06.2010 petitioner/third accused who is the manager of M/s.Muthoot Fincorp Ltd. deposited `.28 lakhs with the second accused, got release of the gold ornaments and pledged the same in the branch of petitioner. According to the prosecution, petitioner was not having the required licence under the Act to advance money on security of gold ornaments. It is alleged that petitioner is therefore guilty of offence punishable under Section 18 read with Section 13 of the Act. Learned counsel submits that though this Court in the decision in Sundaram Finance Ltd. v. State of Kerala (2009 (4) KLT 833) has held that artificial persons like companies, statutory corporations, societies, etc. also come within the definition of “person” under Section 2(7) of the Act, the said decision is under challenge in the Supreme Court in S.L.P.(C) No.34057 of 2009. According to the learned counsel petitioner is not liable to be proceeded against for offence punishable under Section 18 read with Section 13 of the Act and at Crl.MC No.4495/2010 2 any rate, until the Supreme Court finally decided the matter. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there is no embargo in the Investigating Agency proceeding with the investigation and submitting final report. 2. As of now, there is no stay of proceeding against petitioner or the institution of which she is the manager. As such, this Court is not required to interfere with the investigation and submission of the final report in the matter, at this stage. Resultantly without prejudice to other rights if any of the petitioner, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks