IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRL.P.NO.3561 OF 2010. Date:30.04.2010 Between:- D.Prameela Devi ..Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. .. Respondent ORDER:- The petitioner, who is the accused No.2 in C.C.No.1 of 2007 on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, Kurnool, who is the Special Judge under the A.P.Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999 (in short, the Act) seeks quashing of proceedings relating to that case under Section 5 of the Act. 2. The case relates to collection of monies by way of deposits from the public by and on behalf of ‘Vijetha Agro Farms (India) Limited’. F.I.R. in this case in Crime No.109 of 2002 was registered on 26.10.2002 under Section 5 of the Act. After investigation, the police filed charge sheet and additional charge sheet not only under Section 5 of the Act but also for offences punishable under Sections 409, 420 and other I.P.C. offences. Prior to amendment which took place on 14.07.2003, section 2(c) of the Act excluded a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act from out of the definition of “Financial Establishment”. It is only by virtue of amendment which took place in the year 2003, company incorporated under the companies Act is also included within the definition of “Financial Establishment” under Section 2(c) of the Act. Therefore, when the crime was registered and when the alleged default took place in repayment of deposit amount, section 5 of the Act had no applicability to the transaction. In that view of the matter, there cannot be prosecution of the petitioner for offence under Section 5 of the Act. But in so far as other I.P.C. offences are concerned, the petitioner has to face prosecution either before the Special Judge i.e., Principal Sessions Judge, Kurnool or before the Magistrate Court to which case will be transferred by the Principal Sessions Judge. 3. In the result, the petition is allowed quashing proceedings in C.C.No.1 of 2007 on the file of Special Judge under the Act, who is the Principal Sessions Judge, Kurnool in so far as offence punishable under Section 5 of the Act is concerned against the petitioner/A-2. _​_________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J 30th April 2010 AMD