M. VENKATARAMAN ALIAS MUTHU VENKATARAMAN Vs. STATE OF MADRAS, REPRESENTED BY SUB-INSPECTOR (D.S.I.) AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been put in by M. Venkataraman who was adjudicated insolvent by this Court on his own petition on 19th October, 1966. An interim protection under Sec. 25 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act was given to him on 26th October, 1966. On 17th October, 1966, however a criminal complaint had been filed against him by one Harigopal Agarwal accusing him of an offence under Sec. 420, Indian Penal Code, namely of obtaining of sum of Rs. 3,660 by false representations of offering to sell some land. The charge -sheet was filed by the Police in the Court of 8th Presidency Magistrate on 3rd January, 1967. The present application has been filed for stay of the proceedings before the learned Magistrate pending termination of the proceedings by way of discharge in the insolvency petition. The present application purports to be filed under Sec. 18 of the Act which says:

(2.) I do not think however the contention can be accepted. I have no doubt that the word 'other proceeding' relates only to a civil proceeding and not to criminal proceedings. If the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner were correct, it would follow that this Insolvency Court would have jurisdiction even to stop enquiry of an offence of murder alleged to have been committed by the insolvent. Surely that is unthinkable. The words 'other proceeding' occurring in Sec. 18 must be construed with reference to the scheme of the Act. The scheme of the Act is only to give relief to the insolvent -debtor from pressure of his several creditors and to grant him discharge finally after securing an agreeable distribution of his asset and in the meantime protection against arrest or detention for any debt to which the Act will apply as given under Sec. 25(1). Sec. 25(3) for instance says that a protection order shall protect the insolvent from being arrested or being detained in prison for any debt to which such order will apply and any insolvent detained or arrested contrary to the terms of such order shall be entitled to his release.

(3.) It is clear that the protection order is only against arrest or detention for any debt. For instance if there is an accusation of murder against the insolvent and the police arrest him therefore, the protection order granted under Sec. 25 cannot avail the insolvent and the police will be free to arrest him subject to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code and it is only the criminal Courts which will have jurisdiction to deal with the matter.