ORDER D. Murugesan, J. - Heard. Crl. O.P. No. 15143 of 2000 has been filed by the petitioners for grant of anticipatory bail, apprehending arrest by the respondent police for the alleged offence under Sections 420, 409, 120 (b) of IPC and under section 5 of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1997 XLIV of 1997. The learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that as per the prosecution case the complainant in the FIR approached one D. Anend for deposit of a sum of Rs. 1 lakh on 4-5-1994 in Fixed Deposit for a period of one year repayable on 4-5-1995 with interest @ 30% p.a. payable monthly. Accordingly, the deposit was made. The said deposit was renewed for a further period of one year from 4-5-1995 with interest @ 24% p.a. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that similarly, one D. Soundaravalli also made a deposit of Rs. 1 lakh with M/s. Hi-Grow Security Services managed by the said Anend on 9-4-1994. After maturity the amounts deposited have not been returned. Therefore, the complaint has been lodged. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioners have nothing to do with the Hi-Grow Security Services wherein the deposits were made and the deposits were made only with D Anend. 2. The learned counsel further submitted that the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interest of Depositors (Financial Establishment) Act. 1997 came into force only on 8-8-1997 and the Fixed Deposits made by G.D. Nayagam and Soundaravalli matured on 7-6-1997 itself and therefore, no offence is made out under the said Act. The learned counsel also submitted that there was no request on behalf of the complainant for renewal of the Fixed Deposits and the custodial interrogation of the petitioners are not necessary. 3. The learned Government Advocate on the other hand submitted the 1st petitioner herself claiming to be time proprietrix of M/s. Hi-Grow Security Services have declared so in her income tax assessment. Altogether, there were 3 Companies floated by the petitioners namely (1) M/s Hi-Grow Security Services. (2) Adithya Foundations and (3) Sunrise Financial Services (P) Limited. In all, more than Rs. 30 lakhs had been received by the petitioners and Anend from various depositors and they have not returned the same. Altogether, there were 3 Companies floated by the petitioners namely (1) M/s Hi-Grow Security Services. (2) Adithya Foundations and (3) Sunrise Financial Services (P) Limited. In all, more than Rs. 30 lakhs had been received by the petitioners and Anend from various depositors and they have not returned the same. In fact the complainant G.D. Nayagam requested the repayment of the matured amount and the same has not been obliged by the petitioners as could be seen from the letter of the said G.D. Nayagam to the Superintendent of Police dated 29-6-2000. 4. Insofar as the legal submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners the learned Government Advocate submitted that the offence is a continuous one and so long as the amount, after the maturity, has not been repaid and due on the date when the Act came into force, the provisions of the Act could be invoked against the petitioners. For the said purpose, the learned Government Advocate drew my attention to the Preamble of the Act as well as Section 6 (3) of the said Act and also submitted that the constitutional validity of the said Act has been upheld by this Court. The learned Government Advocate further submitted that after the issue of cheques purposely "stop payment" instructions have been given to the bank. In view of the fact that not only the complaint of G.D. Nayagam, but also several complaints covering an amount of more than Rs. 30 lakhs have been received and therefore, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners are absolutely necessary. Therefore, the learned Government Advocate submitted that the request of the petitioners for grant of anticipatory bail has to be rejected. 5. In view of the legal submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners as to the applicability of the Act to the petitioners, it is appropriate to consider as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the provisions of Tamil Nadu Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act. 1997 could be made applicable to the petitioners. As rightly contended by the learned Government Advocate, the object of the Act is to protect the innocent depositors. It is not in dispute that the validity of the said Act has been upheld by this Court in the judgment reported in M/s. Thirumuruga Finance rep. by Its Partner Sr. 1997 could be made applicable to the petitioners. As rightly contended by the learned Government Advocate, the object of the Act is to protect the innocent depositors. It is not in dispute that the validity of the said Act has been upheld by this Court in the judgment reported in M/s. Thirumuruga Finance rep. by Its Partner Sr. V. Thirunayukkarasu and 15 others v. The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by Secretary to Govt. Law Department, Chennai and Another1, It is also not in dispute that the fixed deposits matured as early as on 7-6-1997 itself. After the maturity, it was not the case of the petitioners that they offered to repay the said amount to the complainant. In the absence of any such offer to repay the said amount, it must be presumed that the petitioners are under obligation to pay the said amount to the complainant on the date when the Act came into force namely on 8-8-1997 but failed to do so. In that view of the matter, I do not find any justification in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the provisions of Tamil Nadu Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act. 1997 are not applicable to the petitioners. Hence, the said submission is rejected. 6. With regard to the merits of the case as stated by the learned Government Advocate and adopted by the learned counsel for the interveners in Crl. M.P. Nos. 5398, 5896, 5898, & 6126 of 2000 it is seen that the petitioners have jointly managed the Hi-Grow Security Services and the same could be ascertained from the fact of declaration of the 1st petitioner herself in the income tax assessment declaring herself to be the proprietrix of the Hi-Grow Security Services and it cannot be said that only A 1 Anend was responsible for the offence. So long as the deposits received by the petitioners have not been returned to the complainants inspite of repeated requests and the cheques issued to the various complainants have also been directed for "stop payment", it should be presumed that the intention of the petitioners is to cheat the depositors whether, the same is by way of Fixed Deposits or by way of promissory notes. The apprehension raised by the learned Government Advocate that in view of the transactions involving more than Rs. 30 lakhs. The apprehension raised by the learned Government Advocate that in view of the transactions involving more than Rs. 30 lakhs. the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is absolutely necessary appears to be reasonable. Therefore. I am unable to appreciate the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners for grant of anticipatory bail. 7. Therefore, the petition for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners is dismissed and the intervening applications are ordered. Petition dismissed. 1. 2000 (II) CTC 609 .