Judgment : Per N. PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR, J. 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred against the order made in Crl. O.P. No. 1 of 2004 dated 29.4.2005 on the file of the Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai. 2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal as could be seen from the pleadings are as follows: (a) The appellants herein are the Directors of Software Exports Limited. The Central Crime Branch, Chennai, registered Crime No. 12 of 2002 on 6.1.2002 against the appellants and others for the alleged offences under Sections 406, 420, 506(ii) I.P.C. read with Section 30 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959, on the basis that one N. Anbalagan, son of Natarajan, residing at Vysarpadi, Chennai-39, preferred a complaint against the first appellant and four others alleging that they were running a Computer Education Institution in the name of style of ‘Innovation Software Export Limited‘ at 241-F,Kilpauk Garden Road,Kilpauk, Chennai-10, and invited applications from students through news media that they offer computer course “Unique Career Opportunity” by providing stipend in the range of Rs.2,000/- to Rs,5,000/- assuring that after completion of 15 months course, they would provide better placement at U.S.A. and collected course fee ranging from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.1.00 lakh from 70 to 80 students, which run about Rs.70 lakh and they neither provided any job opportunity nor returned the money. (b) Based on the said complaint, the Inspector of Police, X team, Chennai Crime Branch, registered the above criminal case and investigation disclosed that the appellants herein are Director and Managing Director of the Company respectively and the Company was registered under the Companies Act, 1956, and in between the month of May, 1999 and December, 2001, the appellants and others collected money from the aspiring students. During the course of investigation, the first respondent was remanded to judicial custody by warrant dated 27.2.2002 and some of the accused obtained anticipatory bail. (c) The Investigating Officer received twenty one complaints against the said Company for the alleged cheating of a sum of Rs.17,72,000/-. The appellants herein have equal share of perpetual rights and were identified and authorisation was obtained from the Government by invoking the provisions of Section 3 of the Criminal Law (amendment) Ordinance, 1944 through G. O. Ms. No. 6, Home Department, dated 2.1.2003. The appellants herein have equal share of perpetual rights and were identified and authorisation was obtained from the Government by invoking the provisions of Section 3 of the Criminal Law (amendment) Ordinance, 1944 through G. O. Ms. No. 6, Home Department, dated 2.1.2003. Since the properties procured by means of the offence are not available for attachment, authorisation was obtained for attaching other properties of the accused viz., the appellants herein. (d) Charge sheet was filed before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai on 1.7.2002 in C.C. No. 7085 of 2002 and the same is pending for trial. The attachment is made pending completion and termination of the criminal proceedings connected with the investigation in Cr. No. 12 of 2002. For confirmation of the said attachment, the respondent herein filed the Criminal O.P. (e) The said application was resisted by the respondent herein by filing counter affidavit stating that the attached properties were purchased by the appellants in their personal capacity on 21.6.1996 and the alleged collection of money from the students towards course fee is in the period between May, 1999 and December, 2001 and therefore there is no connection between the purchase of properties attached and the alleged collection of money and the appellants being Directors, have got only limited liability and their personal properties cannot be attached. It is further stated that even if the offence is proved, the amount can be recovered only from the assets of the Company and not from the appellants, who are directors of the Company. 3. The learned Judge, after considering the rival submission and the counter affidavit as well as additional counter affidavit, confirmed the order of attachment stating that the appellant and other five accused committed offence under Sections 406, 402, 420 read with Section 120B and 506(i) I.P.C. It is further stated in the order that one of the accused by name Venugopal has already admitted the charges and he was convicted by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and the trial against the appellants is still pending and therefore there is reason to conclude that the appellant has committed the above offence in this case. The property attached was purchased by the first appellant as per Document No. 3154 of 1996 dated 21.6.1996 and the second item was purchased by the second appellant as per Document No. 3155 of 1996 dated 21.6.1996 and the said properties are in the name of the appellants and pending trial, the attachment cannot be released as there is prima facie case made against the appellants. The said order of the Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai, is challenged in this appeal contending that the personal properties purchased by the appellants prior to the alleged occurrence could not be attached and the liability of the appellants being limited, the personal properties cannot be attached and the Company is having sufficient properties to be attached and therefore the attachment order passed against the appellants‘ personal properties is liable to be revoked. 4. Heard the learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellants, who argued on the basis of the above grounds and prayed for releasing the attachment. 5. The learned Special Government Pleader, on the other hand submitted that the personal property owned by the Directors can also be attached if the Investigating Officer is satisfied that the properties owned by the Company may not be sufficient to discharge the liability. The learned counsel also submitted that if at all the appellants are interested in releasing the attached properties, it is for them to furnish the security and get release of the attachment. 6. I have considered the rival submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as respondent. 7. The point in issue is whether the order passed by the Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, making attachment absolute is just and propere 8. Admittedly, a criminal case is pending against the appellants and one of the accused pleaded guilty and paid fine. The amount said to have been cheated by the Company from the students is more than Rs.70 lakhs, even though complaints were given by the students, worth about Rs.17, 72,000/-. The Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1944, Section 3 provides for application for attachment for property. Section 4 empowers the Police to order ad-interim attachment. Section 8 deals with furnishing security in lieu of the attachment and the duration of attachment will continue till the termination of the criminal proceedings as per Section 10 of the Act. 9. The Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1944, Section 3 provides for application for attachment for property. Section 4 empowers the Police to order ad-interim attachment. Section 8 deals with furnishing security in lieu of the attachment and the duration of attachment will continue till the termination of the criminal proceedings as per Section 10 of the Act. 9. From the perusal of Section 4 it is made clear that on receipt of an application under Section 3, the District Judge shall make an opinion that there exist no prima facie ground for believing that the person in respect of whom the application is made has committed any scheduled offence or that he has procured thereby any money or other property, pass without delay an ad-interim order attaching the money or other property alleged to have been so procured, or if it transpire that such money or other property is not available for attachment, such other property of the said person of equivalent value as the District Judge may think fit. The Tamil Nadu Act 47 of 1997, which is an amendment to the Criminal Law, 1941 (Central Ordinance 38 of 1944) enlarged the scope of the said ordinance so as to attach any property of any person, who had committed the offence under Section 405, 408, 409, or 420 I.P.C. In view of the amendment above referred issued by the State Government and the reason stated by the respondents that the Company properties may not be sufficient to clear the liability, the learned Judge was right in confirming the attachment and there is no error of law appeared on the face of the record to remove the attachment. 10. The learned Chief Judge of Small Causes Court, Chennai, in the concluding portion of the order held as follows: “16. On a careful perusal of Section 5(3) of the Ordinance, it is as follows: Section 5(3).-After investigation under sub-section (2), the District Judge shall pass an order either making the ad interim order of attachment absolute or varying it by a releasing a portion of the property from attachment or withdrawing the order. On a careful perusal of Section 5(3) of the Ordinance, it is as follows: Section 5(3).-After investigation under sub-section (2), the District Judge shall pass an order either making the ad interim order of attachment absolute or varying it by a releasing a portion of the property from attachment or withdrawing the order. Provided that the District Judge shall not (a) release from attachment any interest which he is satisfied that the person believed to have committed a scheduled offence has in the property, unless he is also satisfied that there will remain under attachment an amount of the said persons property of value not less than that of the property believed to have been procured by the said person by means of the offence, or (b) withdraw the order of attachment unless he is satisfied that the said person has not by means of the offence procured any money or other property. As per the above provision of law, when there are reasons that the accused have committed the offences mentioned in the schedule, the attachment shall not be raised. In the present application, even though the attached properties were purchased even prior to the date of the commission of the schedule offences, considering the trial pending before the criminal forum, there are reasons to believe that the respondents have committed the above said offences mentioned in the schedule. Under such circumstances, as per Section 5(3)(a) of the Ordinance, the respondents are not entitled for the relief of releasing the attachment of the properties mentioned in the petition.” 11. The contention of the learned senior Counsel for the appellants that as per the complaints, only Rs.17,72,000/- is the subject matter of the alleged cheating and as Section 8 contemplates raising of attachment on furnishing security, the appellants may be permitted to furnish security for the said amount, was not the pleading made before the Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai. Hence I am unable to give any finding with regard to the submission of the learned senior counsel for the appellants. 12. Section 8 of the Ordinance reads as follows: 8. Hence I am unable to give any finding with regard to the submission of the learned senior counsel for the appellants. 12. Section 8 of the Ordinance reads as follows: 8. Security in lieu of attachment.- Any person whose property has been or is about to be attached under this Ordinance may, at any time, apply to the District Judge to be permitted to give security in lieu of such attachment, and where the security offered and given is in the opinion of the District Judge satisfactory and sufficient, he may withdraw or, as the case may be, refrain from passing the order of attachment.” The said Section 8 enables appellants to apply before the Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, and furnish security in lieu of the attachment and the section clearly says at any time the party concerned can move the District Judge concerned. Hence, there is no merit in the appeal and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. If any application to raise attachment is made by the appellants on furnishing security, it is for the Small Causes Court to consider the same and pass orders in accordance with law. 13. There is no merit in the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and the same is dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.