2019 (9) TMI 1559 - HC - Indian Laws

Cheating - business of doubling the amount or paying higher interest on the deposit made by complainants - power of Court to attach properties on default - is filing of charge sheet necessary for prosecution of the accused? - HELD THAT - Section 7 provides for attachment of properties on default of return of deposits power of special court regarding attachment. In sub-section 1 to 10 of Section 7, this Act provides as to what is the procedure to be followed for attachment of property - This section nowhere speaks that the charge sheet has to be filed by the competent authority, and for this purpose, Section 13 of the Act, 2005, provides that procedure prescribed for the warrant trial in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (No.2 of 1974) shall be applicable and special court may take cognizance of the offence without being committed the case to it. It is clear from Section 13 of the Act, 2005 that for criminal proceeding, proceeding of warrant trial shall be applicable. The learned trial Court, in its detailed order, has wrongly interpreted Section 7 of the Act, 2005, which was only for attachment of properties and not for criminal trial - The learned trial Court, only on the basis that the charge sheet has not been filed by the competent authority, straightway discharged the respondents from Section 10 of the Act, 2005 wrongly interpreting the Statute, which cannot have affirmation by this Court and is liable to be set aside. The revision petitions are allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 7 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors Interest Act, 2005.
2. Discharge of respondents from the charge under Section 10 of the Act.
3. Authority to file a charge sheet under the Act.
4. Power and procedure of the Special Court under Section 13 of the Act.

Analysis:

1. The High Court analyzed the interpretation of Section 7 of the Act, which deals with the attachment of properties on default of return of deposits. The Court noted that the Act provides a detailed procedure for attachment of property but does not mandate that the charge sheet must be filed by the competent authority. The Court referred to Section 13 of the Act, which specifies that the procedure for warrant trial in the Code of Criminal Procedure applies, and the Special Court can take cognizance of the offense without the case being committed to it. The Court emphasized that for criminal proceedings, the warrant trial procedure is applicable.

2. The Court addressed the issue of the discharge of respondents from the charge under Section 10 of the Act by the trial court. The State, represented by the Deputy Attorney General, argued that the trial court's order was based on a wrong interpretation of the legal provisions of the Act. The State contended that the trial court exonerated the accused at an early stage and failed to appreciate the material on record. The State highlighted that the Act allows for the appointment of a competent authority below the rank of Collector by the State Government. The Court found that the trial court's discharge of the respondents was improper and set aside the orders.

3. The Court examined the authority to file a charge sheet under the Act, emphasizing the requirement of the competent authority, not below the rank of District Magistrate, to file a complaint under Section 7 of the Act. The respondents argued that since the charge sheet was not filed by the competent authority, the trial court did not err in discharging them. However, the Court disagreed, stating that the trial court wrongly discharged the respondents based on this ground, as the Act does not explicitly require the charge sheet to be filed by the competent authority.

4. Lastly, the Court discussed the power and procedure of the Special Court under Section 13 of the Act. The Court highlighted that the Special Court can take cognizance of the offense without the case being committed to it. The Court cited a Supreme Court judgment emphasizing that when the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, courts must interpret it as such without trying to establish the legislative intent beyond the written words. The High Court allowed the revision petitions, set aside the impugned orders, and directed the trial court to frame charges under the Act and proceed accordingly.