The main legal point established in the judgment is that the delay in filing applications and the lack of expediency in the interest of justice can render a case not maintainable.

1. The Appellant/Petitioner/A.2 has focussed the instant Criminal Appeal before this Court as against the order dated 31/8/2005 in Crl.M.P.No.1057 of 2005 passed by the Learned Special Judge under T.N.P.I.D Act (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1997.

The Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Petitioner/A.2 submits that the Appellant/Petitioner and four others were charge sheeted for offence under Section 5 of the TNPID Act, based on the complaint filed by the Respondents (P.Ws.1 and 2), alleging that in the year 1999, the Appellant/Petitioner as Managing Partner of Amaravathi Packing Industries, Udumalpet, received deposits of Rs.2,50,000/- from the First Respondent and issued two Fixed Deposit Receipts for the said amount. Also that the Appellant/Petitioner, received deposits of Rs.1,50,000/- from the Second Respondent and issued two Fixed Deposit Receipts and failed to return the principal amount and the interest. As a matter of fact, the Respondents 1 and 2 filed complaint before the Third Respondent, who after investigation filed a charge sheet against the Appellant/Petitioner and four others.

3. According to the Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Petitioner during the investigation, the Fixed Deposit Receipts were not subjected to Expert's Opinion and it is the contention of the Appellant/Petitioner that the Fixed Deposit receipts were never issued by them and they were forged.

4. The prime contention advanced on behalf of the Appellant/Petitioner is that when C.C.No.123 of 2004 on the file of the Special Court/Designated Court was posted for trial to the shock and surprise of the Accused, the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 projected the application under Section 5 A of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1997 praying to compound the offence mentioning that they had received payments towards the Fixed Deposit Receipts.

5. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Petitioner urges before this Court that the Appellant/Petitioner had never signed the application for compounding the offence and the action was self-serving/unilateral on the part of the Respondents 1 and 2.

6. At this stage, it is the plea of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Petitioner that the trial Judge called the First and Second Respondents to the witness box without even giving notice of the applications to the Accused and proceeded to record their evidence wherein, they had stated that they had received full payments towards the Fixed Deposit Receipts and as such, no further action was necessary and recording their statements, the trial Court acquitted the accused on 4/3/2005.

7. Advancing his arguments, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Petitioner, proceeds to take a plea that the First and Second Respondents were total strangers to the Accused and as such, the Appellant/Petitioner filed an application on 14/3/2005 praying for an enquiry under Section 340 of Cr.P.C., alleging commission of offences under Sections 193, 195, 196, 467, 471 and 472 of I.P.C., and also an application under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 praying for subjecting the Fixed Deposit Receipts to Expert's Opinion. Ultimately, the trial Court, dismissed Crl.M.P.No.1057 of 2005 holding that it was not expedient to lay a complaint in the interest of Justice and resultantly, dismissed the application filed under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act in Crl.M.P.No.3061 of 2005 by a common order dated 31/8/2005.

8. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the trial Court had committed an error in holding that the Accused should have moved the Court under Section 239 of Cr.P.C., on the grounds of forgery. In fact, the trial Court, according to the Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Petitioner has lost sight of an important fact that the Accused can move an application under Section 239 of Cr.P.C., based on the 'Records' filed under Section 173 of Cr.P.C., and at that stage, cannot rely on an alien materials.

9. Th