Judgment :- 1. Heard the arguments of Mr.R.Yashod Vardan, learned Senior Counsel leading Mr.D.Harish, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has come forward to challenge the confirmation of attachment of the properties by the Chief Judge of Small Causes Court, Chennai in Crl.O.P.No.1/2004 dated 29.04.2005. The petitioner is a third party to the said proceedings. In that Criminal Original Petition, an application was filed by the State of Tamil Nadu represented by the Inspector of Police, X Team, Central Crime Branch, Chennai. After due notice to the two accused against whom cases were registered and after noticing the previous exparte attachment of properties granted by the Court on 07.04.2004, by a speaking order, the Chief Judge of the Small Causes Court, Chennai had confirmed the attachment. He held that in terms of Section 5(3)(a) of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1944, the accused were not entitled for releasing the attachment of the properties covered by the petition. 3. It is seen from the records that M/s. Innovation Software Export Limited were accused of offences in inviting applications from the students for the computer course with the promise of providing stipend of Rs.2,000/- to Rs.5,000/-. They have also informed that after the completion of 15 months course, the students would be provided better employment in abroad. They had collected course fees ranging from Rs.50,000/-to Rs.1,00,000/- from 70 to 80 students and in this process, they collected an amount of Rs.70,00,000/-. But, they have not provided any job opportunity as promised and they have also not refunded the money. On receipt of the complaint, the Inspector of Police, X Team, Central Crime Branch, namely, the first respondent registered the F.I.R against the Director and Managing Director of the said Company. During the course of the investigation between May 1999 to December 2001, he found that after collecting moneys from the students, promising job opportunities at abroad, they had subsequently cheated those students. The two accused by name Venugopal and Lakshmanan had obtained an anticipatory bail and the other accused Tmt.Shella and Lakshmanan were yet to be arrested. Altogether, he received complaints from 21 complainants. Thereafter, on the report sent by the Investigating Officer, the State Government issued G.O.Ms.No.6, Home (Pol.VII) Department dated 02.01.2003 and attached the properties as per the schedule. The two accused by name Venugopal and Lakshmanan had obtained an anticipatory bail and the other accused Tmt.Shella and Lakshmanan were yet to be arrested. Altogether, he received complaints from 21 complainants. Thereafter, on the report sent by the Investigating Officer, the State Government issued G.O.Ms.No.6, Home (Pol.VII) Department dated 02.01.2003 and attached the properties as per the schedule. Such order came to be passed in terms of Section 3 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1944. It is also stated that after completion of investigation, a charge sheet has been filed before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai in C.C.No.7085/2002 and the matter is pending trial. 4. On receiving notice from the Chief Judge of Small Causes Court, Chennai in Crl.O.P.No.1/2004, the Director and Managing Director of M/s. Innovation Software Export Limited filed a counter objecting to the attachment of the properties. It was contended by them that the company has no legal obligation to refund the same, as the money collected from the students was purely for the purpose of the course and not for others. The prayer for attachment was illegal as the properties were purchased in the personal capacity of the directors on 21.06.1996, whereas the alleged offences took place between May 1999 and December 2001. Therefore, it is not the case of purchase of properties due to malafide transfer in terms of Section 6 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1944. 5. The learned Chief Judge of Small Causes Court, Chennai, after elaborate discussions on the rival submissions, found a prima facie case about the company's Directors having collected an amount of Rs.70 lakhs from students. Since the trial is pending in respect of the criminal case, there was no question of releasing of the properties. The specific plea that the properties were purchased before the transactions cannot be accepted. There were reasons to believe that the directors have committed the offences and they are not entitled to release of the attached properties. 6. It must be noted at this juncture that the Directors of the company are not before this Court. On the other hand, the petitioner represented through his Power Agent has come to the Court, challenging the said order. 6. It must be noted at this juncture that the Directors of the company are not before this Court. On the other hand, the petitioner represented through his Power Agent has come to the Court, challenging the said order. It is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that before issuing notice, the Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai ordered an ad-interim injunction as they are the owner of the properties and the petitioners were no way connected with the said company and the properties were purchased by them much before the criminal offence came to be committed. 7. The ad-interim injunction which was confirmed by the Chief Judge of Small Causes, Chennai has become final and until the trial is completed, they will not be able to release the property. Hence, there is no locus standi to question the same. However, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition at the instance of third parties and the real affected parties are not before this Court. It is not as if the Criminal Law Amendment do not provide for an alternative remedy before the Appellate Authority, namely, the State Government or the Central Government in terms of Section 11 of the said Act. Though learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contended that an appeal will be available in terms of Section 11 of the Act, this Court is not inclined to restrict the scope of the Appellate power because it is also provided that a person who is aggrieved by an order of the District Judge under the provisions of the Act can appeal to the High Court after the disposal of its order. But at the same time, there is no bar in the said provision to move the State Government with an appeal as against the order passed by the District Judge. It is not open to the petitioner to contend before this Court that their properties were no way connected with the offence and they were not accused in the said criminal case. It must be noted that an order of attachment of the properties pending the trial, there cannot be a final order. May be in terms of the accused it will be a final order, but as against a real owner, it will not be treated as a final order. It must be noted that an order of attachment of the properties pending the trial, there cannot be a final order. May be in terms of the accused it will be a final order, but as against a real owner, it will not be treated as a final order. Therefore, in the absence of the petitioner moving the Small Causes Court claiming ownership of the properties with appropriate material, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition. May be there will be scope to invoke a provision of review of the matter as provided under Section 11 of the Act. 8. Though not under the Act but while dealing with a similar provision of attachment of properties under the Special Court (Trial of offences relating to Transactions in Securities Act, 1992), the Supreme Court vide its decision in RasilaS.Mehta v. Custodian, Nariman Bhavan Mumbai [ (2011) 6 SCC 220 ] in Paras 49 and 50 had observed as follows: "49.) The provisions of the Act do not provide for a pre-decisional hearing before notification but contain an impeccable milieu for a fair and just post-decisional hearing. The fact that it does not provide for a pre-decisional hearing is not contrary to the rules of natural justice because the decision of the Custodian to notify does not ipso facto take away any right of the person thus notified or imposes any duty on him. This also has to be read in the light of the judgment of Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India, which reads as under:(SCC p.666) "Rules of natural justice are not embodied rules. Being means to an end and not an end in themselves, it is not possible to make an exhaustive catalogue of such rules. But there are two fundamental maxims of natural justice viz. (i) audi alteram partem, and (ii) nemo judex in re sua. The audi alteram partem rule has many facets, two of them being (a) notice of the case to be met; and (b) opportunity to explain. This rule cannot be sacrificed at the altar of administrative convenience or celerity. But there are two fundamental maxims of natural justice viz. (i) audi alteram partem, and (ii) nemo judex in re sua. The audi alteram partem rule has many facets, two of them being (a) notice of the case to be met; and (b) opportunity to explain. This rule cannot be sacrificed at the altar of administrative convenience or celerity. The general principle – as distinguished from an absolute rule of uniform application – seems to be that where a statute does not, in terms, exclude this rule of prior hearing but contemplates a post-decisional hearing amounting to a full review of the original order on merits, then such a statute would be construed as excluding the audi alteram partem rule at the pre-decisional stage. Conversely if the statute conferring the power is silent with regard to the giving of a pre-decisional hearing to the person affected and the administrative decision taken by the authority involves civil consequences of a grave nature, and no full review or appeal on merits against that decision is provided, courts will be extremely reluctant to construe such a statute as excluding the duty of affording even a minimal hearing, shorn of all its formal trappings and dilatory features at the pre-decisional stage, unless, viewed pragmatically, it would paralyse the administrative process or frustrate the need for utmost promptitude. In short, this rule of fair play must not be jettisoned save in every exceptional circumstances where compulsive necessity so demands. The court must make every effort to salvage this cardinal rule to the maximum extent possible, with situational modifications. But, the core of it must, however, remain, namely, that the person affected must have reasonable opportunity of being heard and the hearing must be a genuine hearing and not an empty public relations exercise." (emphasis supplied) 50.) Attachment of property is a natural consequence of notification and not sale of the property. The power to order a sale of the property lies only with the Special Court under Section 11 and at this instance where the notified person can be adversely affected, Section 4(2) provides that any person aggrieved by the notification can file a petition objecting the same within 30 days of the date of the issuance of the notification. The Special Court is presided over by a sitting Judge of the High Court. The Special Court is presided over by a sitting Judge of the High Court. All material before the Custodian is placed before the Special Court which independently analyses all the material while deciding the application filed by the notified party challenging the notification. This amounts to post-decisional hearing satisfying the principles of natural justice. Also a pre-decisional hearing would frustrate the entire purpose of the Act. If there is time given to show cause why a person should not be notified, that time would practically be utilised to further divert the funds, if any, so that it becomes even more difficult to trace them." 9. Hence liberty is given to the petitioner to move the Chief Judge of Small Causes Court, Chennai by filing appropriate application for modification of the impugned order of attachment. In such an event, the learned Chief Judge shall consider the same on merits after due notice. With the above liberty, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.