Judgment :- 1. This Civil Revision Petition arises out of an order passed by the Special Court, TNPID Act, 1997, refusing to raise an order of attachment of the properties described in the Schedule to the petition. 2. I have heard Mr.V.Subramaniam, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.M.Venugopal, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents. 3. The petitioners herein are the daughters of one P.Venugopal, who was a partner in certain firms by name C.C.Investments, C.C. Foundations and C.C.Business Credits. The said firms accepted deposits from the members of the public, but defaulted in repayment. Therefore, several complaints were registered against the firms as well as the partners including the parents of the petitioners herein, on the file of the Economic Offences Wing-II, Chennai. 4. Charge sheets were filed in C.C.Nos.61, 62 and 63 of 2004 in which the Special Court convicted the father of the petitioners for various offences and imposed a punishment of rigorous imprisonment for 2 years, apart from fine, in two cases. He was acquitted in the third case. 5. Claiming that in C.C.No.61 of 2004, a fine of Rs.6,64,000/- was imposed, out of which the compensation payable to the depositors was fixed at Rs.4,39,500/- and that in C.C.No.62 of 2004, a fine of Rs.4 lakhs was imposed, out of which the compensation payable to the depositors was fixed at Rs.3,82,500/- and also claiming that their father had paid the entire fine amount on 13.6.2005 itself, the petitioners filed O.A.No.33 of 2006 on the file of the Special Court under Section 7(3) of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors Act, 1997, for raising the order of attachment of two properties. 6. The contention of the petitioners in the said application O.A. No.33 of 2006 was two fold viz., (i) that their father had already paid the entire fine amount, which included the compensation payable to the depositors and (ii) that No.10, Subbaraya Chetty Street, Triplicane, Chennai-5, was the absolute property of their grandmother, who was arrayed as the 7th accused in the criminal proceedings, but who was acquitted by the Special Court. Therefore, the petitioners sought an order raising the attachment. 7. Therefore, the petitioners sought an order raising the attachment. 7. The application O.A.No.33 of 2006 was opposed by the Competent Authority viz., The District Revenue Officer, Chennai, on two grounds viz., (i) that the fine amount deposited by the father of the petitioners was not sufficient to repay the depositors, as an amount of Rs.13,77,220/- is still due to be paid to the depositors and (ii) that though the property was originally purchased in the name of the grandmother of the petitioners, it was developed with the funds collected by the father of the petitioners from the depositors. 8. The Special Court found that the property in question was originally purchased under Ex.P-1 Sale Deed dated 24.7.1963 by Kannammal, the grandmother of the petitioners. But under Ex.R-2 Settlement Deed dated 11.7.1979, she had settled the property in favour of her son Venugopal, the father of the petitioners, retaining however, a life interest thereon. The Government of Tamil Nadu issued G.O.Ms.No.41, Home Department, dated 13.1.2005, directing the attachment of the said property, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 3 of Tamil Nadu Act 44 of 1997. Within 2 months of the order of attachment, the father of the petitioners was convicted by the Special Court in C.C.Nos.61 and 62 of 2004, by a judgment dated 11.3.2005. He paid the fine amount on 13.6.2005 and also filed appeals in C.A.Nos.256 and 257 of 2005. But the father of the petitioners executed a Deed of Settlement dated 5.4.2006 marked as Ex.P- 2 in favour of the petitioners, when the order of attachment was in force. Therefore, the Special Court came to the conclusion that the settlement in favour of the petitioners was null and void and that therefore, the question as to whether the properties were purchased with the funds of the finance companies, did not arise for consideration at all. Consequently, the Special Court dismissed the application of the petitioners for raising the order of attachment. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners are before this Court. 9. Before proceeding to examine the contentions of Mr.V.Subramaniam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, two facts are required to be taken note of. Consequently, the Special Court dismissed the application of the petitioners for raising the order of attachment. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners are before this Court. 9. Before proceeding to examine the contentions of Mr.V.Subramaniam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, two facts are required to be taken note of. They are:- (i) The property in entirety viz., Old Door No.3, New Door No.10, Subbaraya Chetty Street, Triplicane, was undoubtedly purchased in the name of Kannammal, the grandmother of the petitioners, way back in the year 1963 under a Sale Deed dated 24.7.1963. She settled the property in favour of her son P.Venugopal, the father of the petitioners herein under a Settlement Deed dated 11.7.1979. Portions of the property, along with proportionate undivided shares, are claimed to have been sold by Kannammal and Venugopal jointly, under registered Sale Deeds dated 22.10.1998, 26.10.1998 and 22.1.1999. What remained unsold were only (a) Shop No.10 in the ground floor together with corresponding land measuring about 50 sq. ft., and (b) Flat No.10 in the second floor with corresponding land measuring 850 sq. ft. What has been attached by the Government, are only these two portions which remained with the owners viz., Kannammal and Venugopal. Therefore, the subject matter of the present revision are only these two portions which remained unalienated by Kannammal and Venugopal, till 5.4.2006. (ii) The judgment dated 11.3.2005 passed in C.C.Nos.61 and 62 of 2004, convicting the father of the petitioners to rigorous imprisonment and imposing a fine and compensation, was challenged by the father of the petitioners in two appeals Crl. Appeal Nos.256 and 257 of 2005. The appeal in C.A.No.256 of 2005 was disposed of by a judgment dated 9.8.2010 by this Court, reducing the sentence of imprisonment of two years into the period of sentence already undergone. The fact that the father of the petitioners had already paid the compensation amount, was also recorded by this Court. Similarly, the other appeal Crl.A.No.257 of 2005 was disposed of by a judgment dated 10.8.2010, reducing the sentence of imprisonment of two years into one of imprisonment for the period already undergone. As in the earlier appeal, the fine amount already paid was recorded and the shortfall of Rs.45,000/- was also directed to be deposited, within two weeks. Similarly, the other appeal Crl.A.No.257 of 2005 was disposed of by a judgment dated 10.8.2010, reducing the sentence of imprisonment of two years into one of imprisonment for the period already undergone. As in the earlier appeal, the fine amount already paid was recorded and the shortfall of Rs.45,000/- was also directed to be deposited, within two weeks. In pursuance of the said order, the father of the petitioners along with the second accused in the criminal cases, together deposited a sum of Rs.45,000/- on 7.10.2010. 10. In the light of the above additional facts, Mr.V.Subramaniam, learned counsel for the petitioners, raised the following contentions:- (i) that the property in question admittedly belonged to the grandmother, who had purchased it in 1963 and that therefore, it was not capable of being attached; and (ii) that in as much as the amount determined by the Special Court as payable to the depositors had already been paid by the father of the petitioners, there was no impediment for raising the order of attachment. 11. In so far as the first contention is concerned, it appears that the learned counsel has lost sight of one important link in the chain. It is true that the property as it originally was, was purchased in the name of the grandmother Kannammal by a Sale Deed dated 24.7.1963. But by a Settlement Dated 11.7.1979, she retained a life interest in the property and settled the vested reminder in favour of the father of the petitioners. Therefore, on the date on which an order of attachment was passed by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.41, dated 13.1.2005, Mr.P.Venugopal, the father of the petitioners was the owner of the property. 12. Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Act 44 of 1997, empowers the Government to order the attachment of properties, under certain circumstances. The fact that those circumstances existed, at the time when G.O.Ms.No.41 was passed, is not seriously in dispute. 12. Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Act 44 of 1997, empowers the Government to order the attachment of properties, under certain circumstances. The fact that those circumstances existed, at the time when G.O.Ms.No.41 was passed, is not seriously in dispute. Interestingly, Section 3 empowers the Government to attach two types of properties viz.:- (i) properties alleged to have been procured from and out of the deposits collected by the financial establishment, either in the name of the financial institution or in the name of any other person and (ii) such other property of the financial institution or the promoter, partner, director, manager or member of the financial establishment or a person who has borrowed money from the financial institution, to the extent of his default. 13. In other words, an attachment under Section 3 may be (i) of a property purchased from out of the funds of the financial institution or (ii) of some other property, not necessarily purchased from out of the funds, but standing in the name of any of the persons described in Section 3, if the value of the properties purchased from out of the funds are not sufficient for repayment to depositors. 14. Therefore, it is clear that it is not necessary that the property attached should be a property purchased from and out of the funds of the financial establishment. If the value of the properties purchased from out of the funds of the financial establishment are not sufficient to repay the depositors, the Government can attach such other property of the establishment, promoter, partner, director, manager or member of the financial establishment. 15. On the date on which G.O.Ms.No.41 was passed viz., 13.1.2005, the properties stood in the name of the father of the petitioners, on account of the settlement executed by Kannammal under Ex.R-2 dated 11.7.1979. Therefore, the attachment was perfectly in order and the fact that the property originally belonged to the grandmother Kannammal, was not of any relevance. It is not the case of the petitioners and not even the case of their father that there were other properties of the financial establishment itself, which were sufficient to make repayment to the depositors. Therefore, the properties in question were liable to be attached and were rightly attached. Hence the first contention based upon the original ownership of Kannammal, is bound to fail. Therefore, the properties in question were liable to be attached and were rightly attached. Hence the first contention based upon the original ownership of Kannammal, is bound to fail. The Settlement Deed executed under Ex.P-2 dated 5.4.2006 by Venugopal in favour of the petitioners, is of no consequence, in view of the fact that it was done when the order of attachment was in force. Therefore, the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is bound to fail. 16. In so far as the second contention is concerned, it is seen from the judgment of the Special Court in C.C.No.61 of 2004 that the father of the petitioners was arrayed as the fifth accused. The case of the prosecution was that accused Nos.2 to 10 collected deposits from 28 depositors to the tune of Rs.9,15,000/-. They failed to repay the deposits on which an interest of Rs.11,64,000/- had accumulated. In para 42 of its judgment dated 11.3.2005 in C.C.No.61 of 2004, the Special Court recorded a finding that though the charge sheet was filed alleging default in a sum of Rs.9,15,000/-, the prosecution proved the case to the extent of Rs.3,33,000/-. Taking into account the same, the Special Court imposed a fine of Rs.10,000/- for each of the 16 counts on which the accused Nos.1, 3, 5 and 8 were charged. In other words, accused Nos.2, 5 and 8 were each directed to pay a fine of Rs.1,60,000/-, thus totalling to Rs.4,80,000/-. The first accused viz., the company represented by accused Nos.2, 5 and 8 was directed to pay a fine of Rs.1,60,000/- (at the rate of Rs.10,000/- for each of the 16 counts). Thus, the total amount of fine imposed in C.C.No.61 of 2004 was Rs.6,64,000/-, out of which, the Special Court directed a sum of Rs.4,39,500/- to be paid to 16 depositors who were examined in the case as PWs 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19. The amounts payable to each of the depositors was also indicated in the Annexure to the judgment itself. 17. Similarly, in C.C.No.62 of 2004, the father of the petitioners was arrayed as the fifth accused. The charge was that accused Nos.2 to 10 collected deposits from 21 persons to the tune of Rs.8,00,500/- and failed to repay the same together with interest which accumulated to Rs.9,92,620/-. 17. Similarly, in C.C.No.62 of 2004, the father of the petitioners was arrayed as the fifth accused. The charge was that accused Nos.2 to 10 collected deposits from 21 persons to the tune of Rs.8,00,500/- and failed to repay the same together with interest which accumulated to Rs.9,92,620/-. Ultimately, the Special Court found accused Nos.1, 2, 5 and 8 guilty of an offence under Section 5 of the Act and imposed a punishment of rigorous imprisonment upon A-2, A-5 and A-8. The special Court also imposed a fine of Rs.10,000/- for each count. The total amount of fine payable by the company which was the first accused, was Rs.1 lakh. The total amount of fine payable by A-2, A-5 and A-8 was fixed at Rs.1 lakh each. Thus, the total fine imposed was Rs.4 lakhs, out of which the Special Court directed a sum of Rs.3,82,500/- to be paid to the depositors, who were examined as PWs 1 to 7 and 9 to 11. The amount payable to each of them was also indicated in the judgment. 18. In the appeals Crl.A.Nos.233 and 256 of 2005 filed by accused Nos.2 and 5, this Court took into account the total fine amount of Rs.4,80,000/- paid by A-2, A-5 and A-8 together (at the rate of Rs.1,60,000/- per head). This Court also took into account the fact that the amount ordered to be payable to the depositors, was Rs.4,39,500/-. 19. Similarly, in Crl.Appeal Nos.234 and 257 of 2005 filed by A-2 and A-5, this Court took note of the fact that a total amount of Rs.3 lakhs had been paid by way of fine and that the amount payable to the depositors as per the judgment of the Special Court was Rs.3,82,500/-. Thus there was a short fall of Rs.82,500/-. But in the two appeals referred to in the preceding paragraph, there was an excess amount of Rs.40,500/-(Rs.4,80,000 minus Rs.4,39,500/-). Therefore, while disposing of Crl. Appeal Nos.234 and 257 of 2005, this Court directed the appropriation of the said excess amount of Rs.40,500/- as against the shortfall of Rs.82,500/- and directed A-2 and A-5 to pay the balance of Rs.42,000/-. Accordingly, A-2 and A-5 have together paid Rs.45,000/-, after taking into account the fine payable by the firm also. 20. Therefore, while disposing of Crl. Appeal Nos.234 and 257 of 2005, this Court directed the appropriation of the said excess amount of Rs.40,500/- as against the shortfall of Rs.82,500/- and directed A-2 and A-5 to pay the balance of Rs.42,000/-. Accordingly, A-2 and A-5 have together paid Rs.45,000/-, after taking into account the fine payable by the firm also. 20. It is on the basis of the above calculations that the learned counsel for the petitioners contends that all the amounts payable to the depositors have already been deposited in the form of fine by the father of the petitioners and the second accused in the case. Therefore, it is his contention that there is no necessity to continue the order of attachment. In short, his contention is that when no more amount is payable to the depositors, the property cannot be kept under attachement. 21. But the said contention would merit consideration, only if the Special Court can be taken to have finally determined the amounts payable to the depositors, while disposing of the criminal cases filed against the finance company and its partners. If the judgment of the Special Court in the criminal cases can be taken to be an adjudication of the actual amounts payable to the depositors, then the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners would be correct. But if that judgment cannot be taken to be an adjudication of the amounts payable to the depositors, then the disbursement of the amounts to depositors, from out of the fine paid by the accused, cannot be taken to be a complete discharge of the obligations of the accused to the depositors. 22. In other words, the crucial question to be considered before raising the order of attachment, is as to whether the accused could be taken to have discharged their obligations to the depositors, merely because a portion of the fine amount had been disbursed to the depositors by the Special Court. To find an answer to this question, it is necessary to look into the provisions of Act 44 of 1997. 23. Section 3 of the Act, provides both for attachment of properties and for transferring the control over such properties to the Competent Authority. Section 5 is the penal provision, making every person responsible for the management of the affairs of a financial institution, which had committed default, to imprisonment and fine. 23. Section 3 of the Act, provides both for attachment of properties and for transferring the control over such properties to the Competent Authority. Section 5 is the penal provision, making every person responsible for the management of the affairs of a financial institution, which had committed default, to imprisonment and fine. Section 5-A provides for compounding of offences. Section 6 (4) empowers the Special Court to try, along with an offence punishable under Section 5 of the Act, any other offence for which the accused may be charged under the Code of Criminal Procedure. 24. A careful reading of the provisions of the Act would show that the Special Court is invested with the powers of a Civil Court as well as a Criminal Court. While the former is under Section 7, the latter is under Section 13. While the powers of attachment, sale, realisation and distribution conferred upon the Special Court are traceable to Section 7, the procedure and powers regarding offences are traceable to Section 13. Therefore, while prosecuting a person for an offence under Section 5 of the Act read with any other relatable offence under any other enactment, the Special Court acts as a Criminal Court, following the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by virtue of Section 13 of the Act. But while dealing with an application under Section 4 (3) for making the order of attachment absolute and while ordering the release of the property from attachment and directing the sale of the property by public auction for equitable distribution to the depositors, the Special Court acts as a Civil Court, following the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, by virtue of Section 7 of the Act. 25. Section 7 of the Act prescribes an elaborate procedure (i) for adjudicating an application for making absolute, the order of attachment passed by the Government (ii) for directing the sale of the attached property by public auction and (iii) for equitable distribution of the sale proceeds, among the depositors. But the Special Court is not concerned with attachment, sale, realisation and distribution, while acting under Section 13. In a proceeding under Section 13, the focus is on the offences committed. In a proceeding under Section 7, the focus is on getting the money invested by the depositors, back to them. 26. But the Special Court is not concerned with attachment, sale, realisation and distribution, while acting under Section 13. In a proceeding under Section 13, the focus is on the offences committed. In a proceeding under Section 7, the focus is on getting the money invested by the depositors, back to them. 26. If the above distinction between Section 7 and Section 13 is understood, it will be clear that the fine imposed by the Special Court while exercising its criminal jurisdiction and the direction issued by it to pay a part of the fine amount to the depositors, cannot be taken to be a final adjudication of the liability of the finance company to its depositors. It is only when the Special Court acts under Section 7 and determines the amount payable to the depositors, that an adjudication can be said to have taken place. 27. In the case on hand, the finding recorded by the Special Court in C.C.Nos.61 and 62 of 2004 that the offences have been proved only to the extent of certain quantum of money, cannot be taken to be an adjudication of the total liability of the financial establishment to the depositors. It cannot also be taken to be a proceeding under Section 7(8) of the Act. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that all the amounts payable to the depositors have been paid and that therefore, the order of attachment cannot continue, is untenable. 28. However, the continuance of the order of attachment endlessly, will also serve no purpose. Therefore, I am of the view that the Special Court should be directed to issue notice to the depositors, hear them and determine the total amount remaining unpaid (after adjustment of the fine amount already paid) and thereafter, pass appropriate orders on the question of continuing or raising the order of attachment. 29. Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and O.A.No.33 of 2006 is remanded back to the Special Court for fresh adjudication. The Competent Authority is directed to file a statement before the Special Court, within 4 weeks of the receipt of a copy of this order. The statement shall contain the list of depositors and their addresses. The Competent Authority is directed to file a statement before the Special Court, within 4 weeks of the receipt of a copy of this order. The statement shall contain the list of depositors and their addresses. The Sub Inspector of Police, EOW-II, Chennai, shall render all assistance to the Competent Authority to enable the Competent Authority to file (i) the list of depositors (ii) their addresses and (iii) the amount paid as well as remaining unpaid. The Special Court shall then issue notices to the depositors, hear them and determine the amounts lawfully payable to them. After such determination, the Special Court shall give an opportunity to the petitioners, to make payment of the amount so determined. Once the petitioners make payment, the property shall be released from attachment. If they do not make payment, the Special Court shall proceed under Section 7 and 7(8) of the Act. The whole exercise shall be carried out and concluded by the Special Court within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.