ORDER :-This revision case has been filed by the petitioner-AI questioning the order dated 14.11.2007 passed in Crl. MP No.l372 of 2007 in CC No.5 of 2007 by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, registered for the offences under Sections 420, 406 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 5 of A.P. Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the offence under Section 5 of the Act is not attracted since the non-banking financial companies were not included in the definition of 'financial establishment' prior to the amendment Act 17 of 1999. The learned Counsel further contends that the petitioner floated the company in the year 1996 long prior to the Amendment Act came into force, therefore, he is not liable to be prosecuted under Section 5 of the Act. The learned Counsel also submitted that A2 in the said case filed a quash petition before this Court and the said petition was ordered quashing chargesheet to the extent of the offence under Section 5 of the Act. 3. The learned Counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted that a learned Single Judge of this Court in Gourishetty Prabhakar v. State of A.P., 2002 (1) ALD(Crl.) 613 =2002 (1) ALT (Crl.) 492, considered the question of prospective or retrospective operation of the Act and held as follows: "Coming to the question of retrospectivity of the Act, in my opinion, the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner cannot be upheld. It should not be forgotten that the cause of action survives till the date petitioner repays the amount accepted as deposit or till the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed for recovery of the same. Though the deposit matured on 3.10.1999, cause of action to recover the amount was surviving to the complainant by the date of filing of the complaint, i.e., 10.11.200 1 also, i.e., after the Act came into force. Therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that since the deposit matured before the coming into force of the Act, the provisions of Section 5 of the Act cannot be made applicable to that deposit, cannot be accepted." 4. Therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that since the deposit matured before the coming into force of the Act, the provisions of Section 5 of the Act cannot be made applicable to that deposit, cannot be accepted." 4. The learned Counsel for the respondent by referring the above decision submits that since the cause of action survives by the date of the Act came into force, the accused shall be made liable for the offence under Section 5 of the Act by treating the company of the petitioner as a financial establishment as defined under the amended Act, though the complaint was filed prior to the amendment Act came into force. 5. In D. Sudhakar Reddy v. State of A.P. rep. by P.P., in Criminal Petition No.4344 of 2004 dated 6.4.2006 a learned Single Judge of this Court gave a different opinion to the decision referred above and held that the ingredients of Section 5 of the Act 17 of 1999 are not attracted in the case as the amendment came into force after the date of cause of action arose in the case and by that date the non-banking institution was not included in the definition of 'financial establishment'. 6. Section 2(c) defines 'financial establishment', which reads as follows : "Financial Establishment" means an individual, an association or body of individuals or a fine carrying on the business of receiving deposits under any scheme or arrangement or in any other manner but does not include a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (Central Act 1 of 1956) or a Corporation or a Co-operative Society owned and controlled by any State Government operative Society owned and controlled by any State Government or the Central Government, or a banking company as defined under Section 5(c) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (Central Act 10 of 1949) or a non-Banking Financial Company as defined in Clause (f) of Section 45-1 of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 (Central Act II of 1934)." 7. Clause (c) of Section 2 was amended by Act 12 of 2003. By virtue of that a company registered under the Companies Act has also been brought within the definition of 'financial establishment'. The amended Act came into force with effect from 6.11.2003. Prior to that date the companies registered under the Companies Act were excluded from the definition of 'financial establishment'. 8. By virtue of that a company registered under the Companies Act has also been brought within the definition of 'financial establishment'. The amended Act came into force with effect from 6.11.2003. Prior to that date the companies registered under the Companies Act were excluded from the definition of 'financial establishment'. 8. Section 5 of Act 17 of 1999 reads as follows : "Penalty for default :-Where any financial establishment default in the return of the deposit either in cash or kind or defaults in the payment of interest on the deposit as agreed upon, every person responsible for the management of the affairs of the financial establishment including the promoter, Manager or Member of the financial establishment shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years and with fine which may extend to rupees one lakh and such financial establishment shall also be liable for fine which may extend to rupees five lakh." 9. From the above provision it is clear that where financial establishment defaults in the return of the deposit, every person responsible for the management of the affairs of the financial establishment is liable to be punished. The petitioner company was registered under the companies Act and it is not a financial establishment prior to 6.11.2003 i.e., the date of the amendment Act came into force. It is well settled that penal provisions are to be strictly construed and must be held to have prospective application, unless the statute expressly or by necessary implication provides to the contrary. Under Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India no person shall be convicted of any offence except for the violation of the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence. No person can be punished for any Act, said to be committed by him, which was not an offence on the date on which it was committed. The charge-sheet in the present offence was filed on 6.4.1996 much prior to the Amendment Act came into force. At the time of the incident the company was not a financial establishment. The petitioner is a Director of a Finance Corporation. Since the ingredients of Section 5 are not attracted in this case, the petitioner is not liable for punishment under Section 5 of the Act. At the time of the incident the company was not a financial establishment. The petitioner is a Director of a Finance Corporation. Since the ingredients of Section 5 are not attracted in this case, the petitioner is not liable for punishment under Section 5 of the Act. The cause of action for civil remedy may be available to the respondent, but so far as the criminal liability is concerned, Section 5 of the Act has no retrospective effect and it cannot be treated as a continuous offence without there being any express provision to show that the offence mentioned in the charge-sheet is a continuous offence. 10. In the light of the above circumstances and in view of quashing of proceedings against A2 under Section 5 of the Act, I am inclined to allow the application. 11. In the result, Order dated 13.6.2008 passed by this Court in this case is recalled and criminal revision case is allowed in part discharging the petitioner to the extent of the prosecution under Section 5 of the A.P. Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999 and the proceedings in respect of other sections of law shall continue according to law.