Vs
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court held that an appeal against conviction and sentence by a Special Court under the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors Act lies only to the Court of Sessions, not directly to the High Court, because the Special Court is deemed a Magistrate under Section 13 of the Act.
What did the court decide?
Appeal held not maintainable; directed to transmit to Principal Sessions Court, Chennai for disposal in accordance with law.
What the court decided
Crl.A.No.850 fo 2004 The Appellant/ Accused Nos. 1 to 4 Antony, Maria Arputham, M.Maria Selvi, G.Edwin Raja were directed to be released on bail as per the order of this court dated 7.7.2004 and made in Crl.M.P.No.7566/04 in Crl.Appeal No.850/04.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 09.03.2011
Coram
The Honourable Mr.Justice S.NAGAMUTHU
Criminal Appeal No. 850 of 2004 1. Antony 2. Maria Arputham 3. M.Maria Selvi 4. G.Edwin Raja ... Appellants -vsThe State represented by Inspector of Police Economic Offence Wing – II Nagercoil Kanyakumari District. ... Respondent (Crime No.8 of 2002)
Criminal Appeal against the judgment of the Special Court under Tamil Nadu Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishment) Act, 1997, Chennai in C.C.No. 15 of 2003 dated 29.6.2004.
For Appellant : Mr.N.Rajan For Respondents: Mr.R.Muniyapparaj Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
JUDGMENT
Challenging the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants by the Special Court constituted under "The Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1997", in C.C.No. 15 of 2003, the appellants are before this Court with this appeal.
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether an appeal against conviction and sentence under Section 5 of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors Act by a Special Court lies directly to the High Court.
Whether the Special Court constituted under the Tax Protection of Interests of Depositors Act is deemed to be a Magistrate or a Court of Session for the purpose of appeal jurisdiction.
Whether Section 14 of the TANPID Act overrides the limitation in Section 374(2) of the CrPC regarding the court to which an appeal lies against sentences not exceeding seven years.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Antony
- appellant
Maria Arputham
- appellant
M.Maria Selvi
- appellant
G.Edwin Raja
- respondent
State
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court