The main legal point established in the judgment is that the order appealed against is civil in nature, and only a civil miscellaneous appeal, not a criminal appeal, is competent.

The present appeal has been filed as a criminal appeal against an order passed by the Special Judge under the TNPID Act, Chennai in I.A.No.47 of 2010 in O.A.No.11 of 2007.

2. The said interlocutory application was filed by the petitioners herein under Section 7(5) of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1997 praying for the refund of a sum of Rs.46,82,933/- from out of the deposit of Rs.1,78,11,531/- made to the credit of the above said original application, namely O.A.No.11 of 2007 on the file of the Special Judge, under the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1997 , Chennai. The said prayer was made seeking refund of the said amount on the premise that the same would enable the petitioners to settle the claims of the depositors, concerned in the criminal cases registered against the petitioners, namely C.C.Nos. 50 of 2008, 51 of 2008 and 102 of 2008. The said criminal cases were registered on the file of the Economic Offences Wing II, Salem. Now the criminal cases are pending before the Special Judge under the TNPID Act, Coimbatore.

3. The first petitioner, who is no more, was the partner in the financial establishment by name Vani Finance, against which proceedings were initiated under the TNPID Act in O.A.No.11 of 2007 as well as in the above said criminal cases. Since the first petitioner has died, the second petitioner, the son of the deceased first petitioner, has chosen to file the above said interlocutory application in O.A.No.11 of 2007, which had already been disposed of by the Special Judge under the TNPID Act, Chennai. The learned Special Judge under the TNPID Act, Chennai, after hearing both sides, passed an order on 27.10.2010, dismissing the said interlocutory application, holding that the jurisdictional Court was functioning at Coimbatore and criminal proceedings in C.C.Nos. 50 of 2008, 51 of 2008 and 102 of 2008 were pending on the file of the Special Court under the TNPID Act, Coimbatore and that under such circumstances, the prayer of the second petitioner could not be entertained. The said order is now sought to be challenged by preferring the present criminal appeal, purportedly filed under Section 11 of Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1997.

4. Though Mr.Anand Swaroop, shown as the second appellant, was able to get this appeal numbered as a criminal appeal, this Court entertained a doubt regarding the maintainability of a criminal appeal against the impugned order of the Special Judge under the TNPID Act, Chennai. Therefore, before admission, the arguments advanced on the side of the appellants on the question of maintainability of the criminal appeal were heard.

5. Mr.Anand Swaroop, claiming to represent one of the partners of the financial institution as his son, since the said partner is no more, has committed a mistake in providing a cause title showing his father G.S.Ramrao Gupta to be the first petitioner and showing himself to be the second petitioner. The resultant position is that in the appeal memorandum, the very same mistake is reflected and repeated. The said mistake may be technical and we need not harp on such a technical defect. But, a more vital defect in the filing of the appeal as a criminal appeal is noticed by this Court. The learned counsel for the appellants argued that this criminal appeal is maintainable on the assumption that the entire provisions contained in Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1997 are penal in nature and that every proceedings under any of the provisions of the said Act would be a criminal proceedings and hence against any order passed by the competent authority or the Special Court, a criminal appeal shall lie to the High Court in terms of the language of Section 11 of the said Act. This Court is not in a position to accept the above said contention of t