MADURAI: Observing that District Revenue Officers (DROs), who are authorised to file attachment applications, are overburdened resulting in delay in attaching and selling properties of accused persons in financial fraud cases, the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court has directed the state government to take steps to amend the relevant provisions of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (TNPID) Act, 1997, delegating the power to investigating officers.
Justice B Pugalendhi gave the direction while hearing a batch of petitions filed by some of the victims in a case registered by Economic Offences Wing, Madurai, against Apsal India Pvt Ltd and its sister concerns, which allegedly lured depositors promising high returns but cheated them. The petitioners alleged delay in the investigation and sought to speed up the same or transfer the probe to some other agency.
The judge pointed out that in cases of the above nature, if the government is satisfied that a financial establishment is not likely to return the deposits, the designated officers under TNPID Act, namely the DROs, can pass an interim order of attachment attaching the money or other properties of such financial establishments and later file an application before the Special Court within 30 days to make the attachment order absolute.
They can also seek a direction to sell the attached properties through public auction so that the amount could be returned to the victims.
However, since DROs are already overburdened with other works, there is a delay in filing attachment applications, the judge noted and gave the above direction to enable the investigating officers to file the applications directly.
Justice Pugalendhi further recalled that in 2020, the court had appointed a committee under a retired HC judge to ensure the deposits are returned to the victims. But the chairman of the committee recused himself from the post in 2023 citing non-cooperation by the company.
While explaining the delay in investigation, the investigation officer (IO) contended that based on the court's direction, EOW had been only assisting the committee all these years and after the chairperson's recusal, they have sought a clarification from the court on further course of action.
Rejecting this as a lame excuse, Justice Pugalendhi observed that the appointment of committee did not preclude the IO from investigating the case. Since the accused persons had obtained bail and anticipatory bail by undertaking to co-operate with the committee and later failed to do so, the judge advised the IO to move necessary applications to cancel their bail.
Further noting that the case has been pending since 2017, the judge directed the IO to expedite the probe and file final report, preferably within six months.