High Court of Andhra Pradesh
MR. JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU
V.Parvathi & Others
Versus
Chanumolu Narasimha Rao & Others
CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos. 1369 of 2010, 414 of 2011
Decided On: 20-04-2011
B) CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973, Sections 190 and 200 - A.P. Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999, Sections 7 and 10:- Where the Government had issued exparte ad interim attachment the Special Court has no power to pass any order for canceling the atchment or releasing any property from the attachment. The lower Court being a Criminal Court, has not inherent powers. It can exercise only those powers which the law specifically empowers and no others. (Para 9)
Criminal Appeal No.1369 of 2010 is filed by 19 appellants who are stated to be Depositors of the Financial Establishment. Criminal Appeal No.414 of 2011 is filed by the 1st respondent who is the accused and whose property is under attachment. Both the appeals are directed against the order dated 06.10.2010 passed by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada who is the Special Judge under the provisions of the A.P. Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999 (in short, the Act). The 1st respondent herein filed Crl.M.P.No.155 of 2007 in the lower Court under Sections 190 and 200 Cr.P.C. read with Sections 3, 4, 5 and 10 of the Act to grant permission to him to deposit balance of sale consideration of Rs.70,00,000/- under the sale agreement dated 09.09.2000 executed by the 1st respondent/accused and to direct the 2nd respondent/Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada(Urban) to receive the same and to make preparations to execute and register valid and legal sale deed in his favour for the scheduled mention property. A brief reference to background of this case is necessary. Parties in this judgment are referred to as they are arrayed in the petition Crl.M.P.No.155 of 2007 in the lower Court. The 1st respondent/accused was doing finance business at Vijayawada under the names of Chanumolu Financiers and Chanumolu Chit Funds. Alleging that the 1st respondent collected huge deposits from public and felt to repay the deposits as well as interest thereon to the public, criminal case was booked against him and others for the offence punishable under Section 5 of the Act. Pending investigation, on the requisition of the Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada, the Government of A.P. passed G.O.Ms.No.221 dated 06.10.2001 of Home (General.B) Department attaching the properties of Chanumolu Financiers, Vijayawada mentioned in the annexure there to, in exercise of power under Section 3 of the Act. The properties attached under the said G.O. include Commercial Complex with three floors situated in Rajagopalachari Street at D.No.27-14-57, Buckinghampet, Vijayawada-2. In the G.O., approximate value of the said complex is noted as Rs.1 crore. It is located by the side of Buckinghampet Post-Office building. After issuing notices to the accused and others, who are shown as ostensible owners of the properties, the lower Court made the said ad-interim attachment absolute in the year 2002. Subsequently, the Government of A.P. passed G.O.Ms.No.262 Home (General.B) Department, dated 26.12.2005 empowering the Special Court (lower Court) to sale the attached properties of M/s.Chanumolu Financier, Vijayawada by auction and for distribution of auction proceeds among the depositors on priority basis. The Government also directed the competent authority namely Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada to file appropriate application before the Special Court under Section 6(1) of the Act there for. At that stage, the petitioner who is a third party approached the lower Court with the present petition Crl.M.P.No.155 of 2007 for the above mentioned relief.
2. It is the petitioners case that the 1st respondent/accused entered into an agreement for sale dated 09.09.2010 of the schedule property namely Chanumolu Commercial Complex/Chanumolu Complex for Rs.75,00,000/-and received advance of Rs.5,00,000/- there under from him and that balance of sale consideration of Rs.70,00,000/- has to be paid at the time of registration of sale deed and that the sale deed was agreed to be executed and registered after the litigation in respect of the property comes to an end.
3. During enquiry of Crl.M.P.No.155 of 2007 in the lower Court when seven of the depositors filed petition before the lower Court for impleading them as parties to that petition, the lower Court refused to implead them as parties to that petition, but permitted them to submit arguments in that petition. During enquiry of the petition in the lower Court, the petitioner examined himself a
SupremeToday
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.