Point of law : Special Act, Section 18 of the Act empowers the Special Court for taking cognizance, trying the accused person by following the procedures specified in the Cr.P.C.

ORDER :

1. The State by C.I.D. filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) being aggrieved by the order dated 882016 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru, (hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’) in Crime No.116 of 2013 for having rejected the charge-sheet filed by the Police Inspector, Financial and Vigilance Unit, C.I.D., Bengaluru.

2. The petitioner State is the complainant and the respondents are the accused before the Trial Court. The ranks of the parties before the Trial Court are retained for the sake of convenience.

3. The case of the prosecution is that, accused No.1 is the Greenbuds Agro Farms Limited Company and accused Nos.2 to 5 are the Managing Directors and Directors of the said Company. It is alleged that, they have collected investments from the general public and cheated the public up to Rs.12,95,13,433/. The individual investors have filed complaints before different Police Stations in Mysuru District. The State Government, by its order, appointed the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner as Competent Authority for the purpose of taking action against the accused under Section 5 of the Karnataka Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’). Accordingly, investigation has been done and a common Charge-sheet came to be filed by the Police Inspector, Financial and Vigilance Unit, C.I.D., before the Trial Court. The Trial Court, by its impugned order, rejected the Charge-sheet filed under the Act on the ground that the Police Inspector is not the Competent Officer to file the report or for taking action and hence, the accused were discharged for the offence punishable under Section 9 of the Act. However, liberty was granted to the Investigating Officer to file Charge-sheet before the jurisdictional Magistrate for the offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’), which is under challenge before this Court.

4. Heard the arguments of the learned State Public Prosecutor for the petitioner State and perused the records. Learned counsel for the respondents accused remained absent in spite of granting sufficient opportunities by way of adjournments.

5. Previously, this Court dismissed the petition on 1262020 and later, restored the same on 1102020. At that time, the learned counsel for the respondents appeared and submitted no objection to recall the order. Accordingly, I.A. No.1 of 2020 was allowed and the petition was restored by recalling the order of dismissal.

6. The learned State Public Prosecutor has contended that as per Section 4 of the Cr.P.C., the Special Court established under the Act is having power to try the offences punishable under the IPC as well as the offences punishable under the Special Law, but the Trial Court misread Section 5 of the Act and committed error in discharging the accused, even though liberty was granted for filing Charge-sheet before the Magistrate by ignoring the special provisions of law. Even if the Charge-sheet is returned, the question of discharging the accused is illegal. Hence, he prayed for setting aside the same.

7. Admittedly, the accused were involved in cheating of depositors, who invested in their Company and they were many complaints filed by the individual investors in different Police Stations of Mysuru District for the offences punishable both under Section IPC, especially Section 420 of the IPC, and Section 9 of the Act. In view of the order of the Government, the Assistant Commissioner was appointed as per Section 5 of the Act for making enquiry and to file report. However, the said report of the Assistant Commissioner, who is a Competent Authority, required to deal with the investments of the Company or other property believed to have been acquired from out of the deposits and to attach the said investments under Section 3 of the Act and to protect the interest of the investors in acco