1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:29.06.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN CRL.RC(MD)NO.242 of 2011 and MP(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 K.S.Palanichamy :Petitioner/A1 -Versus- The State rep., by the Inspector of Police, Economic Offence Wing (EOW), Anna Nagar, Madurai. :Respondent/Petitioner 1.B.Baskaran 2.V.Sasikumar :Intervener's PRAYER:Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C., to call for the records relating to the order dated 14.03.2011 made in Cr.M.P.No.357 of 2011 on the file of Special Court for TNPID Act, Madurai and set aside the same. For Petitioner:Mr.R.Gandhi For Respondent:Mr.P.Kandasamy,Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side) Mr.K.P.S.Palanivel Rajan for intervenor ORDER By consent, this Criminal Revision Case is taken up for final disposal. 2.The revision petitioner is arrayed as accused No.1 in Crime No.6 of 2010, for the alleged commission of the offence punishable under Sections 406 and 420 I.P.C. r/w Section 5 of TNPID Act 1997. 3.The case of the prosecution is that the revision petitioner along with his wife and relatives were running a firm under the name and style of 'Global Capital Trading Service' and made a representation to the public that if they invest the money in the said firm, they will get adequate return and also profit and believing the representation, the members of the public, deposited through cheque as well as cash to the tune of Rs.4 Crores till May' 2008. However, the first accused and the other co-accused neither paid any amount nor paid interest/profit to the members and therefore, all the accused committed the aforesaid offence. 4.The revision petitioner/A.1 was arrested and he filed Cr.M.P.No.3/11 in Cr.M.P.No.2468 of 2010 in Crime No.6 of 2010 under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. praying for his release on the ground that the respondent/prosecution has failed to file the charge sheet within the stipulated time of sixty days. 5.The Special Court for TNPID Act, Madurai, vide order dated 10.01.2011 has enlarged the revision petitioner/A1 on bail subject to the following conditions: "Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The petitioner shall be released on bail on his execution of bond for Rs.5,00,000/- with two sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of this Court and to deposit Rs.2,00,000/- in this Court, and petitioner accused is directed to produce the original documents of immovable properties within 30 days from the date of released. The petitioner/accused should appear and sign before EOW Wing II Madurai police station daily at 10.00 a.m. until further orders." 6.The respondent herein filed Cr.M.P.No.357 of 2011 praying for cancellation of bail stating that the revision petitioner/A.1 has failed to comply with one of the conditions viz., "to produce the original documents of the immovable properties within thirty days from the date of release." 7.The revision petitioner who was arrayed as the respondent in the said petition filed the counter stating that the original title deeds pertaining https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 to the properties are the subject matter of mortgage and he is making every endeavour to get back the original documents and therefore, prayed for further time to comply with the said conditions. 8.The lower Court, taking into consideration the averments made in the petition and the counter, has cancelled the bail granted to the revision petitioner/A.1 vide order dated 14.03.2011 stating that the revision petitioner/A.1 is deliberately committing delay to avoid the submission of the original documents to the investigating agency. 9.Challenging the vires of the same, the present revision is filed. 10.At the instance of one of the depositors, M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2011 has been filed to intervene in this matter and this Court has also permitted them to intervene. 11.Mr.R.Gandhi, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the order of granting bail has not indicated as how many properties, the petitioner owned and therefore, the petitioner during the pendency of the application for cancellation of bail, has given the details regarding the properties in his possession and also expressed the readiness and willingness to submit the original documents and the lower Court without taking into consideration the same, has committed serious error in cancelling the bail. It is further submitted that the parameters of granting bail and the cancellation of bail are entirely different and the Court should exercise caution while cancelling the bail granted to the accused. 12.When the matter is listed today, the learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has also filed the affidavit of the revision petitioner/A.1, dated 28.06.2011, wherein the properties owned by him and his wife are indicated and stated that he will not in any way operate with the properties or encumber or alienate the properties. He would further submit that the wife of the revision petitioner has also given such an undertaking before the lower Court. The said affidavit is placed on record. 13.The counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent/Prosecuting Agency, wherein it has been stated that the steps are being taken to identify the other properties owned by the petitioner as well as his relatives. 14.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that the petitioner/A.1 and other accused are responsible for cheating the public under the guise of inviting investment and Crores and Crores of amount have been appropriated by way of cheating and practicising fraud. He would further submit that the reasons assigned by the lower Court, are in order. 15.The learned counsel appearing for the intervenor would submit that apart from the properties listed by the petitioner and his wife in the affidavit dated 28.06.2011, the revision petitioner/A.1, his wife and other relatives own other properties also and the Prosecuting Agency is not taking effective steps to identify those properties. 16.It is further submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the intervenor that the prosecution is not keen in getting the properties attached so as to enable them to proceed further to effect the sale of the properties and hence, prays for appropriate direction to the Investigating Agency to proceed on right lines. 17.This Court has carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner/A.1, the learned Government Advocate(Crl Side) appearing for the respondent and the learned Counsel appearing for the intervenor. 18.A perusal of the order dated 10.01.2011 under which, the revision petitioner was granted bail, would indicate that he was directed to produce the original documents within thirty days from the date of release. During the pendency of the application for cancellation of bail, the petitioner has https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 furnished the details and so also his wife, with regard to the properties owned by him. The petitioner has also filed an affidavit dated 28.06.2011 giving the details of the properties owned by him as well as his wife and also given an undertaking that he will not operate with the properties or encumber or alienate the properties, pending disposal of the case in Crime No.6 of 2010. 19.It is represented that the material part of the investigation is already over. 20.This Court taking into consideration the rival submissions and on perusal of the materials available on record in the form of typed set of documents and also taking into consideration the affidavit of the petitioner dated 28.06.2011 filed before this Court, is of the view that the impugned order cancelling bail granted to the revision petitioner/A.1 is liable to be set aside subject to certain conditions. 21.In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the order dated 14.03.2011 made in Cr.M.P.No.357 of 2011 passed by the Court of Special Court for TNPID Act, Madurai, is set aside and the petitioner is enlarged on bail subject to one more condition: The petitioner and his wife shall not alienate or encumber the properties and also shall not alter the physical features of the properties in any manner, during the pendency of this case, in terms of the affidavit dated 28.06.011. 22.The Investigating Agency is also at liberty to proceed further to find out as to whether the petitioner and his relatives own any other properties also and in that event, the Investigating Agency shall take effective steps to attach the properties in terms of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1997. 23.It was represented by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) that steps have already been taken to attach the properties of the petitioner and his wife. 24.In the interest of justice,the Investigating Agency shall take expeditious steps to get the properties attached in terms of the above said Act. 25.The Registry is directed to mark a copy of this order to (i) the Land Commissioner, Chepauk, Chennai - 5, (ii) the District Revenue Officer, Madurai, (iii) the District Revenue Officer, Dindigul, and (vi) the District Revenue Officer, Theni for taking further action regarding attachment of properties of the accused. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (RTI) / TRUE COPY / Sub Assistant Registrar To:1.The Special Judge for TNPID Act, Madurai. 2.The Inspector of Police,Economic Offence Wing (EOW),Anna Nagar,Madurai. 3.The Land Commissioner, Chepauk, Chennai-5. 4.The District Revenue Officer, Madurai. 5.The District Revenue Officer, Dindigul. 6.The District Revenue Officer, Theni. 7.The Additional Public Prosecutor,Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,Madurai Copy To:The Section Officer, Criminal Section,Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,Madurai. RP/12.07.2011/3P/9C. CRL.RC(MD)NO.242 of 2011 and MP(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/