Crl.O.P.No.22187 of 2021and Crl.M.P.No.12024 of 2021 and

Crl.O.P.No.10040 of of 2022

The petitioner/first accused has come forward with a specific plea that the sale of property effected by the competent Authority, D.R.O has sold the property for a song in the public auction held on 3.3.2022 and he has got a better offer for the very same property and also a prospective purchaser to offer more value to the said property and the property was sold in proper manner. The total extent of amount to be paid by the accused to the extent of 12,17,82,321/- and the outstanding amount will be Rs.20,47,00,000/- and the balance of the amount viz., 8,29,17,679/- will be paid by him. By various orders, this Court has directed the D.R.O Competent Authority for conducting of the auction and the successful bidder has also been made as a party by impleding them as party respondents.

C.B.I could contend that the 1021 depositors, to whom the petitioner is focusing upon is only a fraction of the depositors. The actual depositors who have been cheated by the petitioner herein is numbering about 52,893 and hence for the purpose of conducting of the Session trial only 1021 depositors alone had been examined by the trial court and the case has been completed and arguments were closed and there is no laxity on the part of the Investigation Officer by the C.B.I warranting any re-investigation. Though the implead petitions have been allowed they have not presented before this Court.

As per the statement given by the learned Senior Advocate B.Kumar on behalf of the petitioner/A1, total amount that could be fixed will be 12,17,82,321/- and balance amount Rs.8,29,17,679/-the petitioner is willing to pay the settled amount and hence the total amount of Rs.20,47,00,000/- will be settled, so that this Court can direct the D.R.O to file a compounding application before the concerned Sessions Court. As per the charge sheet, it is noticed that it is not 1021 depositors however they are totally 52,893 depositors some of them have died. The total amount that has to be returned is 9,303,233,383/- but not as projected by the petitioner. The only the offence section 5(a) of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests and Depositors (In financial Establishment) Act is compoundable while the other offence under Section 4 of the Prize chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978 is not a compoundable offence.

Taking into consideration that the alleged prospective purchasers has not filed any affidavit showing that they are interested in purchasing the property at higher price nor the petitioner has identified those prospective purchaser and  the factual position that it is 52,893 depositors are found to be defrauded, only handful of 1021 depositors were examined before the Sessions Court and therefore, settling the amount of only those who have been examined cannot be accepted leaving the 58527 depositors at lurch and accordingly, the High Court has rejected the petition and dismissed.

In view of the fact that the investigation has been completed by C.B.I and also that the arguments has been completed are matter is ready for trial. The stay granted for pronouncement of judgment is also vacated.

 Crl.O.P.No.22187 of 2021and Crl.M.P.No.12024 of 2021 and

Crl.O.P.No.10040 of of 2022

The petitioner/first accused has come forward with a specific plea that the sale of property effected by the competent Authority, D.R.O has sold the property for a song in the public auction held on 3.3.2022 and he has got a better offer for the very same property and also a prospective purchaser to offer more value to the said property and the property was sold in proper manner. The total extent of amount to be paid by the accused to the extent of 12,17,82,321/- and the outstanding amount will be Rs.20,47,00,000/- and the balance of the amount viz., 8,29,17,679/- will be paid by him. By various orders, this Court has directed the D.R.O Competent Authority for conducting of the auction and the successful bidder has also been made as a party by impleding them as party respondents.

C.B.I could contend that the 1021 depositors, to whom the petitioner is focusing upon is only a fraction of the depositors. The actual depositors who have been cheated by the petitioner herein is numbering about 52,893 and hence for the purpose of conducting of the Session trial only 1021 depositors alone had been examined by the trial court and the case has been completed and arguments were closed and there is no laxity on the part of the Investigation Officer by the C.B.I warranting any re-investigation. Though the implead petitions have been allowed they have not presented before this Court.

As per the statement given by the learned Senior Advocate B.Kumar on behalf of the petitioner/A1, total amount that could be fixed will be 12,17,82,321/- and balance amount Rs.8,29,17,679/-the petitioner is willing to pay the settled amount and hence the total amount of Rs.20,47,00,000/- will be settled, so that this Court can direct the D.R.O to file a compounding application before the concerned Sessions Court. As per the charge sheet, it is noticed that it is not 1021 depositors however they are totally 52,893 depositors some of them have died. The total amount that has to be returned is 9,303,233,383/- but not as projected by the petitioner. The only the offence section 5(a) of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests and Depositors (In financial Establishment) Act is compoundable while the other offence under Section 4 of the Prize chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978 is not a compoundable offence.

Taking into consideration that the alleged prospective purchasers has not filed any affidavit showing that they are interested in purchasing the property at higher price nor the petitioner has identified those prospective purchaser and  the factual position that it is 52,893 depositors are found to be defrauded, only handful of 1021 depositors were examined before the Sessions Court and therefore, settling the amount of only those who have been examined cannot be accepted leaving the 58527 depositors at lurch and accordingly, the High Court has rejected the petition and dismissed.

In view of the fact that the investigation has been completed by C.B.I and also that the arguments has been completed are matter is ready for trial. The stay granted for pronouncement of judgment is also vacated.