( 1 ) PETITIONER, the Managing Director of Visweswar Finance and Chit Fund Company Private Limited, questions the action of the official respondents in registering the respective crimes against him under Sections 3 and 5 of the Andhra pradesh Protection of Depositors of Financial establishments Act, 1999 (for short 'the act') read with Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 as illegal and arbitrary and seeks a direction to set aside the same.

( 2 ) PETITIONER submits that on the complaints made by certain depositors/ subscribers criminal cases have been registered against him under Sections 420 and 406 IPC in 2003 but later the FIR's registered on 11. 6. 2003 have been altered on 19. 8. 2004 adding the provisions of sections 3 and 5 of the Act. He further submits that initially having registered the cases under Sections 420 and 406 IPC alone there was no justification on the part of the official respondents in adding sections 3 and 5 of the Act. The petitioner having questioned the registration of crime under Sections 420 and 406 IPC as well as sections 3 and 5 of the Act, restricts his grievance with regard to altering the provision of law punishable under Sections 3 and 5 of the Act contending that as on the date of the registration of the crimes the provision of Sections 3 and 5 of the Act were not applicable to the chit fund company, therefore, alteration of the crime for the offence under Sections 3 and 5 of the Act is illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Act as well Article 20 of the Constitution of India. He submits that under Article 20 of the Constitution of India he is liable for punishment for violation of law in force at the time of the commission of the act charged as an offence, but not in respect of the law, which came into force subsequent to the commission of offence.

( 3 ) ON the other hand, the learned government Pleader appearing for Home submits that, no doubt, initially the cases have been registered against the petitioner under Sections 420 and 406 IPC on 11. 6. 2003 but subsequently the provisions of sections 3 and 5 of the Act have been invoked and altered FIR's have been issued 19. 8. 2004. Learned Government Pleader further submits that the petitioner has collected deposits from the public and failed to pay the same even on repeated demands; he was running chit fund business and failed to repay the amounts to the successful bidders and also failed to repay the monetary benefits to the subscribers and the cheques issued by him have bounced. Though initially cases have been registered for cheating and criminal breach of trust, since the petitioner has collected deposits and did not pay the amounts on maturity, the provisions of sections 3 and 5 of the Act were invoked and FIR's were altered accordingly.

( 4 ) THE question that arises for consideration is as to whether the provisions of Sections 3 and 5 of the Act can be invoked by altering the FIR's against the petitioner.

( 5 ) THE Act came into force with effect from 1. 11. 1999. As per the statement of objects and reasons, the Act was enacted as number of unscrupulous financial establishments were cheating innocent, gullible depositors by offering very attractive rates of interest, collecting huge deposits and then vanishing suddenly. The depositors are being cheated and put to grave hardship by losing their hard savings. To curb these mal practices the State Government has decided to bring a law for protecting the interests of the depositors of financial establishments and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. A financial establishment is defined under Section 2 (c) of the Act as follows:

"'financial Establishment' means an individual, an association or body of individuals or a firm carrying the business of receiving deposits under any scheme or arrangement or in any other manner but does not include a company registered under the companies Act, 1956 or a Corporation or a co-operative Society owned and con

Click Here to Read the rest of this document