P.N. PRAKASH, J.

1. This Criminal Revision Case has been preferred seeking to call for the entire records pertaining to the order passed by the Special Court for TNPID Act Cases, Madurai, Madurai District (for brevity “the TNPID Court”) in C.C.No.46 of 2010 vide order dated 06.05.2011 and set aside the same and consequently, direct the TNPID Court to take cognizance of the private complaint and to try the respondent for the offence charged in the said complaint and further, direct the TNPID Court to dispose of the same in accordance with law.

2. On a complaint lodged by Deivendran (the respondent herein) the Central Crime Branch, Madurai City, registered a case in Cr. No.28 of 2010 for the alleged offences under Sections 406, 420 read with 120-B IPC and Section 5 of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (in financial establishments) Act, 1997 (for brevity "the TNPID Act") against Sheik Mohaideen (the petitioner herein and others). As a counterblast, Sheik Mohaideen filed a private complaint against Deivendran before the TNPID Court for an alleged offence under Section 211 IPC alleging that the complaint given by Deivendran to the police was false. The said private complaint was taken on file as C.C. No.46 of 2010 by the TNPID Court and it was dismissed on 06.05.2011 under Section 203 Cr.P.C., aggrieved by which, Sheik Mohaideen filed the present revision petition, which came up for disposal before Mr. Justice P.R. Shivakumar (since retired). While hearing the revision petition, it was brought to the notice of Shivakumar,J. that Mr.Justice S. Nagamuthu (since retired) has held in Antony and 3 others vs. the State represented by Inspector of Police, Economic Offences Wing-II, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District [2011 2 L.W. (Crl.) 298] that an appeal from an order of conviction and sentence of less than seven years imposed by the TNPID Court would lie only to the Sessions Court and not to the High Court. Shivakumar, J. did not agree with the said proposition of law and he, therefore, formulated a question of law and referred the matter to the Hon'ble Chief Justice for constituting a Division Bench to decide the issue. Pursuant to the orders of the Hon'ble Chief Justice, this Division Bench has been constituted.

3. Heard Mr. R. Anand, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, Mr.K.K.Ramakrishnan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and M/s.N.Ananthapadmanabhan and K. Samidurai, learned amici curiae.

4. Before proceeding further, it may be apposite to extract the reference formulated by Shivakumar, J.:

“10. In the light of the divergent views taken by myself and by Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Nagamuthu regarding the forum in which an appeal will lie from an order of the TNPID Court passed on the criminal side, I am of the considered view that the issue “whether an appeal shall lie to the High Court under Section 11 of the TNPID Act against an order passed by the Special Court under the TNPID Act on the Criminal Side or such an appeal shall lie to the Court of Session as held by Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Nagamuthu in Antony and others vs. The State reported in 2011 2 L.W.(Crl.) 298”, shall be referred to the decision of a larger Bench. Accordingly, the Registry is directed to place the matter before My Lord the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for placing it before a Larger Bench.”

5. It is common knowledge that the constitutional validity of the TNPID Act was upheld by a Full Bench of this Court in S. Bagavathy vs. State of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Secretary, Law Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 9 and another [2007 (2) CTC 207] and was confirmed by the Supreme Court in K.K. Baskaran vs. State represented by its Secretary, Tamil Nadu and others [2011 (2) CTC 887]. The circumstances under which the TNPID Act came into being can be best explained by extracting the statement of objects and reasons of the said Act.

“There is mushroom growth of Financial Establishments not covered by the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 (Cent