Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.
M/s. KCP Infra Limited, Formerly known as KCP Engineers Pvt Ltd., Rep by its Director, K. Muthukumarasamy, Coimbatore - Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by P. Vedarathinam, Superintendent of Police, Cyber Arangam, IIT Research Park, Chennai & Others – Respondents
C.M.A. Nos. 2373 of 2023, 119 & 120 of 2024 & C.M.P. Nos. 22447 of 2023, 1034 & 1035 of 2024
Decided On : 28-03-2024
Criminal Law - Attachment Orders - Criminal Law(Amendment) Ordinance, 1944 - Section 11 - Section 4(1) - Section 10(a) - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of Section 4(1) and Section 10(a) of the Criminal Law(Amendment) Ordinance, 1944, which govern the duration and extension of attachment orders. The court emphasized that an attachment order will be in force for a period of one year unless extended by the District Judge on application by the Agent of the State Government or the Central Government. The court also highlighted that once an order is lapsed, it cannot be extended subsequently.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved an appeal against orders extending and making absolute an interim attachment of the appellant's property under the Criminal Law(Amendment) Ordinance, 1944. The appellant, a company, was implicated in a corruption case, and the court was tasked with determining the validity of the extension and absolute orders.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the interim attachment order had lapsed as of a certain date and could not be extended subsequently. It also held that the orders extending and making the attachment absolute were contrary to the provisions of the Criminal Law(Amendment) Ordinance, 1944. The court also rejected the request to refer the matter to a Special Bench for MP/MLA cases, emphasizing that the matter was civil in nature and should be handled by civil courts.
Issues: The issues included the validity of the extension and absolute orders for the interim attachment, the jurisdiction of the court to handle the matter, and the authorization of the affidavit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the provisions of Section 4(1) and Section 10(a) of the Criminal Law(Amendment) Ordinance, 1944, which govern the duration and extension of attachment orders. The court emphasized that once an order is lapsed, it cannot be extended subsequently. The court also relied on previous judgments and legal principles to support its findings.
Final Decision: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeals were allowed, the orders extending and making the attachment absolute were set aside, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed. The court also rejected the request to refer the matter to a Special Bench for MP/MLA cases.
JUDGMENT :
(Prayers in CMA.No.2373 of 2023: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 11 of Criminal Law(Amendment) Ordinance, 1944, to allow the civil miscellaneous appeal by setting aside the order dated 28.07.2023 in Crl.M.P.No.10 of 2022 in Crime No.16/AC/2021/HQ on the file of the Special Court for the cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, Chennai.
In CMA.Nos.119 & 120 of 2024: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 11 of Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1944, to allow the civil miscellaneous appeal by setting aside the order dated 26.07.2023 in Crl.M.P.Nos.744 & 745 of 2023 in Crl.M.P.No.10 of 2022 in Crime No.16/AC/2021/SIC, on the file of the Special Court for the cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, Chennai.)
1. The appeal in CMA.No.2373 of 2023 has been filed against the order dated 28.07.2023 passed in Crl.M.P.No.10 of 2022 making the ad-interim order of attachment dated 01.02.2022 as absolute.
2. The appeal in CMA.No.119 of 2024 has been filed against the order dated 26.07.2023 passed in Crl.M.P.No.745 of 2023 in Crl.M.P.No.10 of 2022 extending the ad-interim order of attachment dated 01.02.2022 passed in Crl.M.P.No.10 of 2022 till the cognizance of the case is taken.
3. The appeal in CMA.No.120 of 2024 has been filed against the order dated 26.07.2023 passed in Crl.M.P.No.744 of 2023 to accept the additional affidavit in Crl.M.P.No.10 of 2022.
4. The brief facts of the case is as follows:
4.1 The appellant/Company namely M/s.KCP Infra Limited (Formerly KCP Engineers Limited) was initially started as a partnership firm in the year 2005 as an Infrastructure Development Firm. Later in the year 2011, the Company was incorporated as Private Limited Company in the name and style of KCP Engineers Private Limited.
4.2 Further, on 16.04.2021, the Company was converted into Public Limited Company and subsequently, the name was changed as KCP Infra Limited with effect from 17.05.2021.
4.3 In the year 2018, the writ petition in W.P.No.34845 of 2018 was filed by a 3rd party before this Hon'ble Court to direct the police to register an FIR against Mr.S.P.Velumani, who was the Former Minister for Municipal Administration and Water Supply, Government of Tamil Nadu, on the basis of its complaint dated 12.09.2018. On 18.10.2019, this Court directed the respondent to conduct a preliminary enquiry by senior IPS Officer named Ms.Ponni, Superintendent of Police. Based on the above said order, the preliminary enquiry was conducted and it was found that there was no criminal offence made out against Mr.S.P.Velumani.
4.4 Subsequently, due to the change in political dispensation in the State of Tamil Nadu, the FIR in Crime No.16 of 2021 was registered on 09.08.2021 against Mr.S.P.Velumani and others for the offence under Sections 120B read with Section 420, 409 of IPC and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 109 of IPC. In the said FIR, the appellant-Company has been arrayed as A3. The main allegations in the FIR are that when Mr.S.P.Velumani was the Minister, he has injudiciously awarded a Tender to the Contractors, who alleged to be benami of him including this appellant herein.
4.5 Mr.S.P.Velumani had filed a petition to quash the FIR in Crl.O.P.No.21565 of 2022 before this Hon'ble Court. This Court vide order dated 30.11.2022 quashed the FIR and observed that the said FIR is a colourable exercise of power by the police and clear abuse of process of law. Further, this Hon'ble Court had made an observation that the investigation Officer has failed to find out the link between A1 (Mr.S.P.Velumani) and the Contractors including the appellant-Company. That apart, the said order dated 30.11.2022 of this Court was confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by its order dated 27.03.2023 in SLP(Crl)No.58 of 2023.
4.6 On the basis of the FIR in Crime No.16 of 2021, the 1st respondent had filed an application in Crl.M.P.No.10 of 2022 on 25.01.2022 to attach the properties
The main legal point established in the judgment is that an attachment order under the Criminal Law(Amendment) Ordinance, 1944, will be in force for a period of one year unless extended by the Distri....
Point of Law : Application shall be accompanied by one or more affidavits stating the grounds on which the belief that the said person has committed any schedule offence is founded, and the amount o....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the extended period of limitation due to the COVID-19 pandemic does not apply to the validity period of the provisional attachment order under....
Point of law: Provisional attachment - Adjudicating Authority does not become functus officio on expiry of the period of 180 days from the passing of the order of provisional attachment unless such o....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
