Judgment 1. The Appellants have preferred the instant Criminal Appeal as against the order dated 18.01.2011 in Cr.M.P.No.1690 of 2010 in Crl.M.P.No.450 of 2010 passed by the Learned Principal Sessions Judge, Erode. 2. The Learned Principal Sessions Judge, Erode, while passing the impugned order, on 18.01.2011, in Cr.M.P.No.1690 of 2010 in Crl.M.P.No.450 of 2010 (filed by the Respondent/Petitioner/Third Party), had, among other things, in paragraph 10, observed that '.... From the above said documents, it reveals that the property which is given as security belongs to the Petitioner and the value of the same is Rs.1,29,00,000/-. The amount which was attached by this court under Section 4 of Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1944 is Rs.86,93,500/-. So, the security offered by the petitioner is more than the amount attached by this Court. She also undertakes to redeposit the amount whenever ordered by this Court. So, this Court is satisfied with the security offered by the petitioner in lieu of the attachment as per Section 8 of the said Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1944 and accept the security to raise the order of attachment with regard to the deposit of amount in Indian Bank, Erode' and resultantly, allowed the Petition by raising the attachment made over the deposit in Indian Bank, Erode to the tune of Rs.86,93,500/- subject to the condition that the Petitioner executing a registered security bond with regard to the property to be offered as security within 10 days from today in the office of the concerned Registrar in favour of the 1st Respondent (1st Appellant) and further, the Respondent/Petitioner was directed to produce the document into Court within one month. 3. According to the Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the Appellants/Respondents, the impugned order passed by the trial Court in Cr.M.P.No.1690 of 2010 in Crl.M.P.No.450 of 2010 dated 18.01.2011 is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. 4. The Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the Appellants contends that the trial Court failed to appreciate that the facts and circumstances of the case do not warrant the invocation of Section 8 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1944. 5. The Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the Appellants submits that a sum of Rs.86,93,500/- was tainted money and that the claim of the Respondent/Petitioner that it belong to her, was a fallacious one. 6. 5. The Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the Appellants submits that a sum of Rs.86,93,500/- was tainted money and that the claim of the Respondent/Petitioner that it belong to her, was a fallacious one. 6. Advancing his arguments, the Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the Appellants proceeds to contend that the investigation in the case revealed that the Accused had produced copies of two alleged sale agreements before the Investigating Officer in the case. Further, one sale agreement dated 05.05.2008 related to the proposed sale of house plot for Rs.88,00,000/-and that an advance of Rs.80,00,000/- was received as an advance. 7. The Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the Appellants strenuously submits that it was inconceivable that an individual entering into a sale agreement for a consideration of Rs.88,00,000/- would part with a sum of Rs.80,00,000/- as an advance. 8. Added further, the Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the Appellants contends that the non-judicial stamp paper used for the preparation of the alleged sale agreement itself was received on 06.06.2008 but the sale agreement was dated 05.05.2008. Moreover, the sale agreement dated 07.05.2008 was between the Respondent and her own tenant and the recitals were to the effect that out of sale consideration of Rs.25,00,000/- an advance of Rs.15,00,000/-was received by her. 9. The Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the Appellants submits that the trial Court failed to take into account that a sum of Rs.86,93,500/- which was recovered from five different Bank Lockers was nothing but an ill-gotten money of the Respondent/Petitioner's Husband and the same was liable to be forfeited. 10. Lastly, it is represented on behalf of the Appellants that the trial Court had not taken into account that the Respondent/Petitioner came with a false case and obtain orders of Court by playing fraud. 11. It comes to be known that in the Petition in Cr.M.P.No.1690 of 2010 in Crl.M.P.No.450 of 2010 (filed by the Respondent/Petitioner under Section 8 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1944), it was averred that the Respondent/Petitioner filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.1949 of 2008 before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode under Section 451 Cr.P.C. for release of the amounts of Rs.86,93,500/-seized from 4 Bank Lockers. Further, it was also mentioned that her son had completed medical course and to set up clinic of his own and her daughter studied BDS course. Further, it was also mentioned that her son had completed medical course and to set up clinic of his own and her daughter studied BDS course. Also, to help her son by constructing the building to house his clinic, she entered into an agreement for selling the landed properties of her own and received an advance and this advance amount received by her was kept in the Bank Lockers and the same was not tainted by corruption. 12. It also transpires that the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode dismissed Crl.M.P.No.1949 of 2008 filed by the Respondent/Petitioner under Section 451 Cr.P.C. on 03.11.2009 based on wrong premises. Therefore, the Respondent/Petitioner was constrained to prefer Crl.R.C.No.1221 of 2009 before this Court. However, this Court, in Crl.R.C.No.1221 of 2009, was inclined to release the funds to her provided a consent affidavit was filed by her husband stating that he had know objection to release the funds to her. That apart, a consent affidavit from her husband was also filed. However, before final orders could be passed in Crl.R.C.No.1221 of 2009, the Government of Tamil Nadu issued G.O.Ms.No.10, Energy, (B2) Department, dated 08.02.2010 under the provisions of Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1944 and an additional counter was filed, in which, it was mentioned that an Application under Section 3(1) of the Ordinance was filed by the 2nd Appellant before this Court and by an order dated 31.03.2010 made in Crl.M.P.No.450 of 2010, this Court was pleased to order an interim attachment of all the properties mentioned in G.O.Ms.No.10, Energy (B2) Department, dated 08.02.2010 including the said sum of Rs.86,93,500/-. 13. It is to be noted that on 16.04.2010 this Court was pleased to dispose of Crl.R.C.No.1221 of 2009 granting liberty to the Respondent/Petitioner to move an Application before the trial Court under Section 8 of the Ordinance. In fact, the Respondent/Petitioner preferred the present Application viz., Crl.M.P.No.1690 of 2010 under Section 8 of the Ordinance praying for an order releasing the sum of Rs.86,93,500/- on accepting immovable property security of self or third parties. Further, she was willing to furnish immovable property security of self or third party to the satisfaction of the Court as a condition precedent for directing the release of the sum of Rs.86,93,500/-. Further, she was willing to furnish immovable property security of self or third party to the satisfaction of the Court as a condition precedent for directing the release of the sum of Rs.86,93,500/-. Also, she had filed the consent affidavit of her husband (K.G. Natesan/Accused in Crime No.6/2008/AC/CB on the file of Erode Vigilance and Anti Corruption) whereby he had expressed his no objection for releasing the aforesaid amount. She had also undertaken to redeposit the aforesaid sum of Rs.86,93,500/-, if so ordered by the Court at any future date. Furthermore, the immovable property furnished by her would be sufficient to safeguard the interest of the State. As such, she had prayed before the trial Court to accept the immovable property security of herself or third party offered by her and sought for raising the attachment and release the sum of Rs.86,93,500/-(made in Crl.M.P.No.450 of 2008), which was kept in Indian Bank, Gandhiji Road, Erode, by withdrawing the ad-interim order of attachment dated 31.03.2010. 14. In the counter filed by the Respondent/Complainant to Cr.M.P.No.1690 of 2010 (filed by the Respondent/Petitioner/Claimant), it was stated that the Petitioner/Claimant is the wife of Accused and that a search was conducted in the house of the Accused at 83/1, Second Cross Road, VIP Colony, Erode on 21.07.2008, by the then Investigating Officer/Additional Superintendent of Police, SIC, V&AC, Chennai, in the presence of the Accused and his wife (Respondent/Petitioner/Claimant) and official witnesses and number of incriminating documents were seized during the search. Furthermore, it came to light that the Accused and the Respondent/Petitioner/Claimant were jointly having safety lockers in some banks in Erode. 15. Also that, it was stated that neither Accused nor the Respondent/Petitioner did cooperate with the Investigating Officer of the case to conduct search in those lockers and based on search warrants obtained by the Investigating Officer, after moving the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge, Erode, the Accused come forward to cooperate with the then Investigating Officer. That apart, when the Accused obtained anticipatory bail order, this Court directed him to cooperate with the Investigating Officer, by means of order dated 30.07.2008 in Crl.O.P.No.18401 of 2008. That apart, when the Accused obtained anticipatory bail order, this Court directed him to cooperate with the Investigating Officer, by means of order dated 30.07.2008 in Crl.O.P.No.18401 of 2008. Furthermore, the presence of Accused was secured and search was conducted in the Lockers jointly held by the Accused and the Respondent/Petitioner/Claimant and a sum of Rs.86,93,500/- was seized along with few incriminating documents and the details of the same are as follows: S.L. No. Name of the Bank Locker No. Date & Time of search Details of seizure 1 The Erode District Central Co-op Bank Ltd., Erode. 43 06.08.08 at 11.30 hrs. to 13.45 hrs Rs.2,07,500/- and 7 documents 2 UCO Bank, Mettur Road, Erode F5 06.08.08 at 15.15 hrs. to 18.30 hrs. Rs.54,00,000/- 3 Indian Bank, Perundurai Road, Erode. V/4 07.08.08 at 12.15 hrs. to 18.30 hrs Rs.30,36,000/- 4 UCO Bank, Mettur Road, Erode 29 07.08.08 at 16.00 hrs to 16.30 hrs Rs.50,000/- 5 UCO Bank, Mettur Road, Erode 79 08.08.08 at 10.45 hrs to 11.10 hrs. The locker was empty 16. As a matter of fact, the cash and documents seized during the house search and the search in the lockers were remanded to the judicial custody before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge, Erode. The Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge, Erode under intimation to the Accused deposited the said amount under Fixed Deposit on 21.08.2008 with the Indian Bank, Gandhiji Road, Erode for a period of three years. 17. The Respondent/Petitioner/Claimant filed Crl. M.P. No. 1949 of 2008 dated 21.09.2008 to get back the sum of Rs.86,93,500/- with a plea that the amount was part of the advance amount of Rs.95,00,000/- received in cash from two parties of Salem and Erode to whom she had agreed to sell two of her properties under sale agreements, dated 05.05.2008 and 07.05.2008 respectively. A counter was filed. Later, the trial Court dismissed the Petition in Crl.M.P.No.1949 of 2008 filed by the Respondent/Petitioner/Claimant on 03.11.2009. The Accused had come up with a claim seeking return of money of Rs.86,93,500/-through his wife and in fact, the claim was made after two months from the date of seizure of the amount by the Investigating Officer during the investigation. 18. Later, the trial Court dismissed the Petition in Crl.M.P.No.1949 of 2008 filed by the Respondent/Petitioner/Claimant on 03.11.2009. The Accused had come up with a claim seeking return of money of Rs.86,93,500/-through his wife and in fact, the claim was made after two months from the date of seizure of the amount by the Investigating Officer during the investigation. 18. Further, on the orders of the Government in G.O.Ms.No.10, Energy (B2) Department, dated 08.02.2010, an Application under Section 3(1) of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1944 was filed before the Learned Principal District Judge, Erode praying for an order of ad-interim attachment of the properties in Crl.M.P.No.450 of 2010 on 31.03.2010. Under these circumstances, the Respondent/Petitioner/Claimant filed an Application under Section 8 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, praying for passing of an order, by the trial Court, releasing the sum of Rs.86,93,500/- on accepting the immovable property security of self or third parties. The Respondent/Petitioner/Claimant filed a Revision Petition before this Court in Crl.R.C.No.1221 of 2009 against the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.1949 of 2008 by the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge stating that she received an advance amount of Rs.95,00,000/- by entering into two sale agreements. 19. According to the Respondent/Complainant, the investigation so far made revealed that the Accused (K.G. Natesan), husband of the Respondent/Petitioner/Claimant in order to substantiate their claim, produced copies of two alleged sale agreements dated 05.05.2008 and 07.05.2008. In so far as the second sale agreement was made on 07.05.2008 between the Respondent/Petitioner/Claimant and S. Subramanian in the non-judicial stamp paper bearing No.E 533791 for Rs.50/-. The sale agreement mentioned that the Petitioner/Claimant had agreed to sell her house situated at Ts.No.29, Ward-A, Block No.20, Door No.72 to 75 at 244, vide Municipal Colony Road, Erode Town to S. Subramanian, for Rs.25,00,000/- and received advance of Rs.15,00,000/-. Investigation disclosed that S. Subramanian is none other than the tenant of the Respondent/Petitioner/Claimant, for the past 7 years in the house situated at Ts.No.29, Ward-A, Block No.20, Door No.72 to 75 at 244, vide Municipal Colony Road, Erode Town, which is the subject matter of alleged sale agreement. Also, it came to light that the said S. Subramanian had no sufficient means to purchase the said house for Rs.25,00,000/-. 20. Also, it came to light that the said S. Subramanian had no sufficient means to purchase the said house for Rs.25,00,000/-. 20. The stand of the 2nd Appellant/Complainant is that having parted with such a huge sum of Rs.15,00,000/- as advance to the Respondent/Petitioner/Claimant as per the alleged sale agreement dated 07.05.2008, S. Subramanian is still a tenant in the said house for a monthly rent of Rs.2,500/- and was paying the monthly rent till date. Further, the said Subramanian had not bothered either to get back the alleged advance from the Respondent/Petitioner/Claimant or to reside in the subject house without any rent. Also, there is no document, except the alleged fabricated sale agreement, to establish that S. Subramanian had paid such a huge amount as advance to her. 21. The plea of the Appellants is that the Respondent/Petitioner/Claimant and her husband had introduced the sale agreements as an afterthought and the sum of Rs.86,93,500/- is nothing but an ill-gotten money of the Respondent/Petitioner/Claimant's husband. Also that, if the amount is allowed to be taken out of Court, then, the purpose of the Ordinance would get defeated. 22. In the instant case, according to the Respondent/Petitioner/Claimant, she is the absolute/full owner of the properties as per registered sale deed dated 25.05.1995. Also, her name figured as one of the owners of the property in Patta No.408 and 1466. Further, in the Encumbrance Certificate, there was no encumbrance and the Village Administrative Officer of 10, Arasur, Sulur Circle had issued a certificate dated 27.07.2010 stating that she is the owner of the land measuring 11,064½ sq. feet in Government Survey No.95/3, 10 Arasur Village, Sulur Circle, Coimbatore District as per Sale Deed No.2511 dated 29.11.1995 in which concrete buildings were constructed. Also, the Chartered Engineer, Registered Valuer had issued a Valuation Certificate by assessing the fair market value of the property of the Respondent/Petitioner as Rs.1,29,00,000/-. 23. It is to be borne in mind that the amount attached in terms of Section 4 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1944 was Rs.86,93,500/-. At this juncture, it is to be pointed out that it is represented on behalf of the Respondent/Petitioner that the Valuation Certificate issued by the Chartered Engineer, Registered Valuer shows that the property of the Respondent/Petitioner was Rs.1,29,00,000/- and the security offered by the Petitioner is very much on the higher side than that of the amount attached. At this juncture, it is to be pointed out that it is represented on behalf of the Respondent/Petitioner that the Valuation Certificate issued by the Chartered Engineer, Registered Valuer shows that the property of the Respondent/Petitioner was Rs.1,29,00,000/- and the security offered by the Petitioner is very much on the higher side than that of the amount attached. Also that, house tax receipts till 2010-2011 and the electricity charges for June 2009 were in the name of the Respondent/Petitioner. 24. In this connection, this Court very pertinently points out that although on behalf of the 2nd Appellant/Respondent/Complainant and a specific plea was taken that the sale agreement dated 05.05.2008 relating to the proposed sale of house plot measuring 7,950 sq. ft. in Erode Village, Old Ts.No.95/1, New Ward A, Block No.13, New T.S.No.42 Part, Annamalai Lay out, Erode for Rs.88,00,000/- to G. Radhakrishnan, a partner of the Oasis Exporters, Salem – 2, and that he paid a sum of Rs.80,00,000/- out of the proposed sale amount of Rs.88,00,000/- as advance, with a condition that the sale shall be registered at the Sub-Registrar Office concerned in a period of six months and further, it came to light that non-judicial stamp paper bearing No.H 815772 for Rs.100/- used for the preparation of the alleged sale agreement, was received at the District Treasury, Salem, only on 06.06.2008 and as such, the sale agreement was a forged document created for the purpose of the petition etc., the impugned order passed by the trial Court in Cr.M.P.No.1690 of 2010 in Crl.M.P.No.450 of 2010 dated 18.01.2011 does not deal with the same in a quantitative, qualitative and threadbare fashion. In fact, the trial Court had not countenanced the said plea in the manner known to law and in accordance with law, in the considered opinion of this Court. In short, the trial Court had not even rendered a finding about the pros and cons of the plea of forged sale agreement dated 05.05.2008 in the impugned order, as opined by this Court. 25. Likewise, the trial Court had not dealt with the plea taken on behalf of the 2nd Appellant/Respondent/Complainant that the second sale agreement dated 07.05.2008 between the Respondent/Petitioner/Claimant and S. Subramanian in non-judicial stamp paper bearing E.533791 for Rs.50/- was a fabricated sale agreement or otherwise. 25. Likewise, the trial Court had not dealt with the plea taken on behalf of the 2nd Appellant/Respondent/Complainant that the second sale agreement dated 07.05.2008 between the Respondent/Petitioner/Claimant and S. Subramanian in non-judicial stamp paper bearing E.533791 for Rs.50/- was a fabricated sale agreement or otherwise. To put it precisely, the 2nd Appellant/Complainant had crystal clearly taken a stand in its counter filed in Cr.M.P.No.1690 of 2010 before the trial Court that the said Subramanian after parting with a huge sum of Rs.15,00,000/- as advance to the Respondent/ Petitioner/Claimant in terms of sale agreement dated 07.05.2008, the said Subramanian continuously to be a tenant in the said house for a monthly rent of Rs.2,500/- and paying the monthly rent till date etc. 26. It is to be pointed out that no property can be declared to be attached unless the order for attachment has been issued and further in execution of that order other things prescribed under the Act/Rules have been done. 27. It is to be noted that 'Attachment' fundamentally prevents private alienation of property so attached and the attached properties cannot be dealt with to the prejudice of the claims enforceable under the attachment. Owner and occupier, they do not lose all rights an interest in the attached property. 28. At this stage, this Court aptly points out the decision in Bishambar Nath V. Girdhari Lal, AIR 1919 Oudh 4 (A), whereby and whereunder, it is held as follows: “Although an application was made under Order 39, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, an attachment has been ordered and duly made, it was held that it was a valid attachment”. 29. It is to be noted that 'An Agreement to Sell' is not a transfer of any rights in immovable property. It cannot be gainsaid that a written agreement has to precede the putting of the proposed vendee in possession of the property. 30. 29. It is to be noted that 'An Agreement to Sell' is not a transfer of any rights in immovable property. It cannot be gainsaid that a written agreement has to precede the putting of the proposed vendee in possession of the property. 30. In fact, (i) the burden of showing that a transfer is a Benami lies on the individual should assets that it is such a transaction; (b) If it is proved that the purchase money came from a person other than the person in whose favour the property is transferred, the purchaser is prima facie assumed to be for the benefit of the person who supplied the purchase money, unless there is evidence to the contrary; (c) The true nature of transaction is governed by the intention of the person who has contributed the purchase money; (d) The question as to what his intention was has to be determined on the basis of surrounding circumstances, the relationship of the parties, the motives governing their action in bringing about the transaction and their subsequent conduct etc. 31. Further, if the agreement is sham and nominal, the vendee thereunder is not entitled to invoke the doctrine of part performance under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Also that, Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act contemplates a contract in writing and delivery of possession in pursuance of the said contract. It is to be remembered that the doctrine of part performance of contract confers no title on the transferee. A plain reading of the provisions contained in sub-clauses 2 and 3 of Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act clearly go to show that 'Agreement to Sell' has not been included in the restrictions which have been imposed on the right of the debtor. 32. Moreover, mere delay is not sufficient to deny specific performance unless there is a waiver or abandonment. At this stage, this Court very rightly points out a person who has not been put in possession by written agreement, cannot claim protection in terms of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. Ordinarily, the 'Agreements for sale of immovable properties' have certain specific factors which are Quid Pro Quo in nature particularly with regard to consideration for executing the document. 33. Ordinarily, the 'Agreements for sale of immovable properties' have certain specific factors which are Quid Pro Quo in nature particularly with regard to consideration for executing the document. 33. It cannot be lost sight of that for a contract of sale to come into existence necessarily there should be Seller and Buyer and such parties should agree and settle the terms of the contract. Really speaking, Section 55(1) of the Transfer of Property Act regulates the rights and liabilities of 'Buyer and Seller'. Section 53 A of the Transfer of Property Act imposes a statutory bar on the transfer to seek possession of an immovable property from the transferee in possession. Furthermore, Section 37 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 imposes an obligation on the parties to the contract to perform or to offer the performance of their respective premises and the contract cannot be avoided on the Ipse Dixit of one of the parties. 34. Suffice it for this Court to point out that the trial Court, in the impugned order, had not dealt with the points relating to the two sale agreements dated 05.05.2008 and 07.05.2008 for determination and in reality, had not rendered its finding one way or other on merits. It cannot be gainsaid that it is the primordial duty of the trial Court to consider the entire facts and law of the present case and give its own, independent findings ascribing necessary reasons thereto. Further, the trial Court, in the impugned order in Cr.M.P.No.1690 of 2010 had not framed points for consideration/rumination. It is needless for this Court to state that a Court of Law is to set out the points for determination in an impugned order, record the decision thereon and give its own reasons. Further, it is the imperative obligation and duty of a Court of Law to pass an adequate and satisfactory order as is required by law. 35. No wonder, it is the duty of the Court to explain its reasons for so doing, so as to enable the Appellate Court to find out whether the trial Court has gone fully into the facts and furnished reasons for the conclusions arrived at, so as to avoid a possible remand of the subject matter in issue. An omission to consider material points for determination will certainly vitiate the order passed by a Court of Law, in the considered opinion of this Court. An omission to consider material points for determination will certainly vitiate the order passed by a Court of Law, in the considered opinion of this Court. 36. In short, in a given impugned order, all relevant issues that fall for determination are to be addressed by a Court of Law. The points which arises for consideration by the trial Court, indeed, should cover all important questions involved in the case and they should not be a general, vague or superficial one. To avoid remand by an Appellate Court, the trial Court should render/pronounce its opinion on all the important points raised either in a main case or at the time of deciding the Interlocutory Application/Miscellaneous Petition. When there is every possibility of filing an appeal before the superior forum. Also, a Court of Law is to decide all controversies/disputes in a given proceedings to prevent rem and plurality of proceedings. 37. It is to be noted that before the trial Court, on behalf of the Respondent/Petitioner and on behalf of the 2nd Appellant/Complainant, no documents were marked and further, no one was examined as witness. Also, it is to be remembered that before a Court of Law marking of a document is one thing and proving the contents of the same is a different thing. 38. Ordinarily, a Miscellaneous Petition/an Interlocutory Application can be decided based on affidavit and counter affidavit filed by the respective parties. However, there is an option available to the respective parties to let in oral and documentary evidence in the Miscellaneous Petition/Interlocutory Application, if they choose/desire and so advised. 39. Apart from the above, in the present case, copies of the two sale agreements dated 05.05.2008 and 07.05.2008 referred to and relied upon on behalf of the 2nd Appellant/Complainant were produced before the Investigating Officer of the case by the husband of the Respondent/Petitioner. When that be the clear stand taken on behalf of the 2nd Appellant/Complainant, then, this Court is of the considered view that the trial Court, in the impugned order, in Cr.M.P.No.1690 of 2010 in Crl.M.P.No.450 of 2010 dated 18.01.2011, should have dealt with these aspects and ought to have rendered its decisions on merits, by assigning cogent, coherent and convincing reasons in a threadbare fashion. It cannot be brushed aside that the sale agreements dated 05.05.2008 and 07.05.2008 are only after the Sale Deed dated 25.05.1995 and added further, whether the sale agreements are real one or a fabricated one or they are sham and nominal one, all these aspects were not gone into by the trial Court at the time of passing of the impugned order in Cr.M.P.No.1690 of 2010 dated 18.01.2011. 40. Indeed, the impugned order of the trial Court dated 18.01.2011 in Cr.M.P.No.1690 of 2010 in Crl.M.P.No.450 of 2010 clearly shows that the points in controversy/dispute were not clearly before its mind. As such, the impugned order passed by the trial Court in Cr.M.P.No.1690 of 2010 in Crl.M.P.No.450 of 2010 dated 18.01.2011 suffers from material irregularity and patent illegality in the eye of law and to prevent an aberration of justice and to promote substantial cause of justice, this Court sets aside the impugned order dated 18.01.2011 and remits back the entire matter to the trial Court for proper disposal in accordance with law. Viewed in that perspective, the Criminal Appeal succeeds. 41. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The impugned order of the trial Court dated 18.01.2011 in Cr.M.P.No.1690 of 2010 in Crl.M.P.No.450 of 2010 is set aside for the reasons assigned in this Appeal. The trial Court is directed to restore Cr.M.P.No.1690 of 2010 to its file and to dispose of the matter afresh in a Fair, Just and dispassionate manner, uninfluenced with any of the observations made by this Court in this Appeal, by taking up the points for determination, rendering reasons for the decision arrived at, by meeting out and analysing the respective stand/pleas taken by the parties, by providing enough opportunities to both sides in accordance with law to let in oral and documentary evidence by examining necessary witnesses (including the marking of documents which they rely upon). 42. It is made clear that the aspect of redeposit of the amount of Rs.86,93,500/- in Indian Bank, Gandhiji Road, Erode or otherwise will depend upon the outcome of orders to be passed by the trial Court afresh in Cr.M.P.No.1690 of 2010 in accordance with law, if situation so warrants.