ANTONY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the conviction and sentence imposed on the Appellants by the Special Court constituted under "The Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1997", in C.C. No. 15 of 2003, the Appellants are before this Court with this appeal.

(2.) The Appellants have been convicted under Section 5 of Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1997 [hereinafter referred to as "the TANPID Act"] and sentenced to under go rigorous imprisonment for three years under each count and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- for each count and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. [Each accused has to pay a total fine of Rs. 1,35,000/-].

(3.) When the appeal was taken up today for final hearing, a doubt arose in the mind of this Court as to whether, as against the judgment impugned in this appeal, an appeal would lie directly to this Court in view of the provision contained in Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure [in short, "the Code"]. Though initially, the learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that such an appeal to this Court directly lies, later on, the learned Counsel, after having gone through the provisions of the Act, has also conceded that an appeal against such conviction and sentence which is not more than 7 years lies only to the Court of Sessions under Section 374 (2) of the Code. Since it involves an important question, I am inclined to deal with the same elaborately.