*THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU +Crl.P. No. 861 of 2007 % 28-01-2010 #Smt Alla Vijaya Lakshmi and another ….petitioners Vs. $ State of A.P. rep. By the Public Prosecutor and 2 others. …. Respondents +Crl.P. No.5941 OF 2007 % 28-01-2010 #Smt Alla Vijaya Lakshmi and another ….petitioners Vs. $ State of A.P. rep. By the Public Prosecutor and another. …. Respondents !Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri K. Vinaya Kumar Counsel for the Respondents 1 & 3: Public Prosecutor Counsel for the 2nd respondent: Sri Ch. Janardhan Reddy <Gist : >Head Note: ? Cases referred: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.861 of 2007 & CRIMINAL PETITION No.5941 of 2007 Dated: 28th January, 2010 CRIMINAL PETITION No.861 of 2007 Between: Smt Alla Vijaya Lakshmi and another …Petitioners AND The State of AP, rep by PP and another …Respondents CRIMINAL PETITION No.5941 of 2007 Between: M/s. Vijayalaxmi Chits, Bandarugudem, rep. by its Foreman and 2 others …Petitioners AND The State of AP through PP and 2 others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.861 of 2007 & CRIMINAL PETITION No.5941 of 2007 COMMON ORDER: These two petitions are filed by the accused Nos.1 to 3 under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing proceedings in Crime Nos.5 of 2006 and 70 of 2006 of Manuguru police station relating to offences punishable under Section 420 I.P.C and Section 5 of the A.P. Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999 (in short, the Act). Subject matter of these two crimes relate to money transactions between the defacto-complainants and the accused. The 2nd respondent in both the petitions who are the defacto-complainants filed respective private complaints before the Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kothagudem who forwarded the complaints to Manuguru police for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C and report. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that under Section 6 of the Act, when a District and Sessions court was constituted as the Special Court by way of notification, the 2nd respondents should have filed their private complaints before the Special Court of that District and should not have filed before the Magistrate as the Magistrate ceased to function as such in respect of offence punishable under Section 5 of the Act. There is every force in the said argument of the petitioners’ counsel. Section 13(2) of the Act reads as follows: “The provisions of the code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Central Act 2 of 1974), shall, so far as may be, apply to the proceedings before a Special Court and for the purpose of the said provisions, a special Court shall be deemed to be a Magistrate.” As per Section 13(2) of the Act, the Special Court constituted under Section 6 of the Act is deemed to be a Magistrate for purpose of all provisions under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. As per Section 14 of the Act, provisions of this Act have overriding effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force. If Sections 13(2) and 14 of the Act are read together, ordinary Judicial Magistrates have no functions or powers in cases in which penal provision under Section 5 of the Act is involved. Perhaps ordinary Judicial Magistrates can entertain presentation of accused before them immediately after arrest as nearest Magistrate, because special Courts are located with District and Sessions Judges at the district head quarters, which may be at some distance from place of arrest of the accused. Thus, the Special Court has got jurisdiction to receive and entertain a private complaint and if necessary to forward the same to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C for investigation. In that view of the matter, presentation of private complaints in these two crimes before the Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kothagudem is improper and forwarding the complaints by the Magistrate to Manuguru police station under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C for investigation is consequentially without jurisdiction because the private complaints allege offence punishable under Section 5 of the Act. In the result, both the Criminal Petitions are allowed quashing Crime Nos.5 of 2006 and 70 of 2006 of Manuguru police station. The 2nd respondents in both the petitions are at liberty to file fresh complaints before the Special Court in case they are advised to do so. ___________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J January 28, 2010 L.R copy to be marked. // By Order// Gk. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.861 of 2007 & CRIMINAL PETITION No.5941 of 2007 Dated: 28th January, 2010