R MALATHI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. Crl. O.P. No. 15143 of 2000 has been filed by the petitioners for grant of anticipatory bail, apprehending arrest by the respondent police for the alleged offence under Sections 420, 409, 120 (b) of IPC and under Section 5 of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1997 XLIV of 1997. The learned Counsel for the petitioners would contend that as per the prosecution case, the complainant in the FIR approached one D. Anend for deposit of a sum of Rs. 1 lakh on 4-5-1994 in Fixed Deposit for a period of one year repayable on 4-5-1995 with interest @ 30% p.a. payable monthly. Accordingly, the deposit was made. The said deposit was renewed for a further period of one year from 4-5-1995 with interest @ 24% p.a. The learned Counsel for the petitioners further submitted that similarly, one D. Soundaravalli also made a deposit of Rs. 1 lakh with M/s. Hi-Grow Security Services managed by the said Anend on 9-4-1994. After maturity the amounts deposited have not been returned, therefore, the complaint has been lodged. The learned Counsel submitted that the petitioners have nothing to do with the Hi-Grow Security Services wherein the deposits were made and the deposits were made only with D. Anend.

(2.) The learned Counsel further submitted that the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interest of Depositors (Financial Establishment) Act, 1997 came into force only on 8-8-1997 and the Fixed Deposits made by G.D. Nayagam and Soundaravalli matured on 7-6-1997 itself and therefore, no offence is made out under the said Act. The learned Counsel also submitted that there was no request on behalf of the complainant for renewal of the Fixed Deposits and the custodial interrogation of the petitioners are not necessary.

(3.) The learned Government Advocate on the other hand submitted, the 1st petitioner herself claiming to be time proprietrix of M/s. Hi-Grow Security Services have declared so in her income tax assessment. Althogether, there were 3 Companies floated by the petitioners namely (1) M/s Hi-Grow Security Services. (2) Adithya Foundations and (3) Sunrise Financial Services (P) Limited. In all, more than Rs. 30 lakhs had been received by the petitioners and Anend from various depositors and they have not returned the same. In fact the complainant G.D. Nayagam requested the repayment of the matured amount and the same has not been obliged by the petitioners as could be seen from the letter of the said G.D. Nayagam to the Superintendent of Police dated 29-6-2000.