AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. Nagamuthu, J.—Seeking to transfer the case in S.T.C. No. 41 of 2007 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Uthamapalayam, to the file of the Special Court under the Tamilnadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1997, Madurai, to be tried along with C.C. No. 6 of 2009 pending on the file of the said Court, the petitioners who are the accused in both the cases, have come forward with this petition.
According to the facts involved in the case, the petitioners collected deposits from various parties and failed to repay the same. In respect of the same, a case was registered by the police and the charge sheet was laid before the Special Court under the Tamilnadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1997, Madurai, in C.C. No. 6 of 2009 for the offences committed as per the provisions of the said Act. The said case is pending trial.
It is also brought to the notice of this Court that in respect of the deposited amount, the petitioners gave a cheque to the first respondent herein. On presentation, the said cheque was dishonoured which resulted in prosecution of the petitioners in S.T.C. No. 41 of 2007 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Uthamapalayam, for the offence u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
It is the above said case which was sought to be transferred for being tried along with C.C. No. 6 of 2009 by the Special Court under the Tamilnadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1997, Madurai.
The learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that as per Section 6 of the Tamilnadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1997, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Uthamapalayam, has no jurisdiction to try the case and therefore, the case needs to be transferred to the Special Court under the Tamilnadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1997, Madurai.
He, more particularly, relies on Sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Tamilnadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1997, which reads as follows:
6.(2). No Court including the Court constituted under the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909 (Central Act III of 1909) and the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920, (Central Act V of 1920) other than the Special court shall have jurisdiction in respect of any matter to which the provisions of this Act apply.
In this regard, the learned Counsel for the petitioners would rely on the decisions of this Court in Kamalamma Vs. T. Murugan and others, as well as an unreported judgment in Muthuvel Industries, represented by its Managing Partner, Subburam v. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dindigul and Ors. in W.P. (MD) Nos. 5241 and 5242 of 2008 dated 12.11.2009, to substantiate his contention.
I have heard the submissions made on either side and perused the records carefully.
A close reading of Section 6 of the Tamilnadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1997, would go to show that in respect of any proceeding relating to the said Act including the offence, the same shall be taken cognizance of and tried by the Special Court. In this case, insofar as the case in C.C. No. 6 of 2009 is concerned, the offence relates to the said Act and therefore, rightly the same is being tried by the Special Court.
So far as the offence u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in S.T.C. No. 41 of 2007 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Uthamapalayam, is concerned, the same has got nothing to do with the Tamilnadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1997. Here, the case is being tried not to recover the amount which is due from the petitioners on account of the deposit, but instead, the case is tried in order to find out whether the petitioners have committed the offence u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by failing to pay the amount after the statutory notice issued u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore, the trial of the case for the offence u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot be said to be relating to any provisions under the Tamilnadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1997.
May be true that the cheque was issued in discharge of the amount due under the deposit which is involved in the case under the Tamilnadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1997, but that will not change the character of the present case.
Insofar as the decision in Kamalamma Vs. T. Murugan and others, relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, is concerned, the facts are totally distinguishable. That was a case where there is a civil suit filed for recovery of the deposited amount. Subsequently, when the proceedings were initiated under the Tamilnadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1997, this Court held that the suit should also be transferred u/s 6 of the Tamilnadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1997, to the said Court. The said view had to be taken on facts as the relief sought for in the said suit was to recover the deposited amount.
Similarly, the reliance placed on the unreported judgment in Muthuvel Industries, represented by its Managing Partner, Subburam v. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dindigul and Ors. in W.P(MD) Nos. 5241 and 5242 of 2008 dated 12.11.2009, is also to be rejected. That was a case where, again for the recovery of the deposited amount, proceedings were initiated before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. Subsequently, proceedings were initiated before the Special Court under the Tamilnadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1997 and that was the reason why this Court passed such an order to transfer the proceedings before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum to the Special Court under the Tamilnadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1997.
Here, in the case on hand, the proceedings are totally different. The proceedings u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not for the purpose of recovering the amount due under the deposit. It is only to punish the petitioners for the alleged offence committed u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Thus, the facts are totally distinguishable and therefore, reliance placed on the above said judgment by the learned Counsel for the petitioners cannot be countenanced.
To repeat, I hold that both the proceedings are totally different and the proceedings u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, has got nothing to do with the proceedings initiated under the Tamilnadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1997. Therefore, the question of trying both the cases by one and the same Judge, that too, the Special Court under the Tamilnadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1997, does not arise.
Hence, I do not find any merit in this petition and the same fails. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are dismissed.