Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 4359 (MAD)

Petitioner v. Respondent

2014-11-20

G.M.AKBAR ALI

body2014
Judgment 1. The petitioner/A1, who is alleged to have committed offences under Sections 4 of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act 1978, under Section 420 IPC and under Sec.5 of TNPID Act, 1997, and was arrested on 11.8.2011 with reference to Cr.No.R.C.No.12 (E) of 2011 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail. 2. The case of the prosecution is that during 2008-2009 at Tiruppur, the petitioner/A.1 along with his father/A.2 entered into a criminal conspiracy to collect deposits from the general public without specific approval from Reserve Bank of India on a false promise of Forex Trading but to indulge in circulation of money. In pursuance of the criminal conspiracy, on 2.7.2008, the petitioner/A.1 along with his father/A.2 floated a company by name M/s Paazee Forex Trading India Pvt. Ltd as Managing Director and his father/A.2 and other accused as the Directors of the Company. They also floated two partnership firms by name M/s Paazee Trading Inc (A5) and M/s Paazee Marketing Company (A6), both represented and managed by its partners, A.1 to A.3. 3. This petitioner/A.1 along with his father/A.2 and A.3 fraudulently mobilised investments and deposits from the public and also promised that huge dividend/interest will be paid in very short duration on the deposits so collected and also issued cheques of various banks in that regard. Thereby the petitioner dishonestly made 52,893 persons to believe that the company/firms are engaged in Forex Trading activities and thereby collected to the tune of Rs.496,27,63,760/-from the depositors during the year of 2009 under the schemes viz., Promotional scheme II, Anniversary, Adi Damaka and Festival offer and promised to repay Rs.1210,26,05,501, but repaid only 340,15,19,623/- knowing fully well that they were not doing any business to generate such huge returns and thus created loss to the depositors to the tune of Rs.870,10,85,878/-. 4. Initially a case was registered by the Central Crime Branch, Tirupur in Cr.No.26 of 2009 under the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme Banning Act 1978 and also under Sec.420 IPC, subsequently, the case was transferred to Economic Offences Wing, Chennai. By an order passed in Crl.O.P.No.2691 and 5356 of 2011 dated 19.4.2011 the case was transferred to the respondent CBI. 5. On completion of investigation, the respondent filed final report on 7.10.2011 before the learned Special Judge for TANPID Cases, Coimbatore which has been taken on file in C.C.No.9 of 2011. 6. By an order passed in Crl.O.P.No.2691 and 5356 of 2011 dated 19.4.2011 the case was transferred to the respondent CBI. 5. On completion of investigation, the respondent filed final report on 7.10.2011 before the learned Special Judge for TANPID Cases, Coimbatore which has been taken on file in C.C.No.9 of 2011. 6. The petitioner along with other two accused moved an application for bail in Crl.O.P.No.1897 of 2012. The said bail was considered along with the bail application of A.2 and A.3 and A.3 is the wife of A.1. 7. After detailed examination and considering the gravity of the offence and the involvement of the accused, this Court refused to grant bail to A.1 and A.2 by a common order dated 5.10.2012. 8. Mr. P. Jagadeesan, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the bank in Singapore insists that the petitioner should give personal instructions to repatriate the money and the petitioner undertakes to co-operate with the respondent for the repatriation and abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Court. 9. Mr. K. Srinivasan, learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases submitted that the petitioner has indulged in cheating, involving crores of rupees and CBI is taking steps to repatriate the money. If the petitioner is released on bail, he will flee from justice and he will not cooperate for the trial and may also indulge in similar offence. 10. Heard Mrs. N. Maheswari for Mr. N. Vijayakumari, and Mr. K.S. Senthil Kumar, learned counsel for the intervenor, who are very particular about the amount to be realised and distributed to the poor depositors. 11. The learned counsel for the intervenor submitted that the poor depositors are waiting for their money to be distributed and the depositors are having great hope in this Court that they will get back their money. Therefore they pray for suitable orders to be passed appointing a Judicial Officer as “One Man Committee” in order to safeguard the interest of the depositors. 12. Heard and perused the materials available on record. 13. This is a second application by the petitioner. While dismissing the earlier application, this court was concerned about the welfare of the depositors. Accordingly series of orders were passed by this court on many occasions and Mr. S.B. Sankar, Additional Superintendent of Police, CBI, EOW, Chennai was also appointed as Nodal Officer. 14. 13. This is a second application by the petitioner. While dismissing the earlier application, this court was concerned about the welfare of the depositors. Accordingly series of orders were passed by this court on many occasions and Mr. S.B. Sankar, Additional Superintendent of Police, CBI, EOW, Chennai was also appointed as Nodal Officer. 14. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases and also the learned counsel for the intervenors/depositors, this Court is of the view that the Banks at Singapore are expecting that the petitioner/A.1 who had deposited huge money, which belonged to public at Singapore, has to personally approach them for instructions. 15. Many correspondence between the respondent and their counterpart in Singapore viz., The First Secretary (Consular), High Commission of India, Singapore, would show that the banks are giving some excuse or other for repatriating the amount. Their only demand is that their customer viz., the petitioner herein, who had deposited huge money, should give appropriate instructions personally. 16. Even video conferencing was also suggested by the respondent but is not coming through. A telephonic conversation was also arranged with one of the banks and the petitioner/A.1 had identified himself and gave instructions to one of the banks, but only some meager amount seems to have been under consideration for transfer but even that amount also is not forthcoming. 17. Meanwhile, there are thousands of investors, who have also formed an Association, are the intervenor in this petition. There are some other depositors also. However, on the petitioner's side, many of the deposits are disputed either as having been already paid or not as genuine one. 18. When the depositors money is about to be realised it has also become necessary to identify the genuine depositors and the quantum of deposits. Immovable properties have also been attached and huge amount deposited in Singapore i.e., Rs.90 crores has to be repatriated. 19. As suggested by the learned counsel for the intervenor, it has become necessary to appoint a “One Man Committee” to finalise the list of genuine depositors and the amount deposited by them. 20. Immovable properties have also been attached and huge amount deposited in Singapore i.e., Rs.90 crores has to be repatriated. 19. As suggested by the learned counsel for the intervenor, it has become necessary to appoint a “One Man Committee” to finalise the list of genuine depositors and the amount deposited by them. 20. In the view of the above, the following order is being passed for the identification of the genuine depositors and distribution of the amount realized from various movable and immovable properties of the accused persons attached as per orders passed for attachment by the Special court and by the Government. This exercise has become necessary as there are numerous depositors and their claims are swelling many fold. 21. Orders regarding the appointment of committee to identify the genuine depositors and their quantum of claim. 1. Thiru. M. Thangaraju, Retired District Judge, residing at 12/3, Prakasam Shree Towers, Eswaran Chettiar Lay out, Puliyakulam, Coimbatore, is appointed as the one man committee to identify the genuine depositors and their quantum of claim. His remuneration is fixed at Rs 35,000/- per month. He is entitled to appoint a ministerial assistant and a menial to assist him and their remunerations are fixed at Rs.10,000/- and 5,000/- each per month respectively. These amounts are to be paid by the petitioner. 2. Petitioner shall provide an office space and provide necessary infrastructure and furniture and the committee shall discharge its duty from the said office. 3. The committee shall scrutinize the records of the various schemes floated by the petitioner either under the control of the petitioner or under the control of the Respondent. It may also approach the Special court and the Special court shall permit the committee to verify the records related to the deposit particulars. 4. The committee shall first give priority to the members of the intervener Association and the members, whose names are furnished to this court and only thereafter other individual or collective claims. It shall also take in to consideration of the poor claimants first and there after residuary to the bigger claimants. 5. It shall compare the original deposit receipts and the records of the company and the petitioner shall assist either by himself or through his staff, who has knowledge about the receipts. 6. It shall also take in to consideration of the poor claimants first and there after residuary to the bigger claimants. 5. It shall compare the original deposit receipts and the records of the company and the petitioner shall assist either by himself or through his staff, who has knowledge about the receipts. 6. The committee shall prepare the list of following categories of depositors; 1) depositors who have not received any amount as benefit from the company so far; 2) depositors who have received some amount as return but makes a claim for the deposit; and 3) depositors who have received amount exceeding the deposits but still make a claim for the deposit. 7. The deposited amount alone will be taken into consideration and not the promised amount. An interest at 10% for three years shall be calculated for any deposit and the amount due shall be arrived. The payments made, if any, shall be deducted to arrive at the due. 8. The depositors, who have not so far received any financial benefits from the company, shall be given first preference and only thereafter, the persons, who have already received some benefits, will be considered. 9. The committee’s decision shall be final in identifying the depositors and his/her due. 10) The final list will be forwarded to the Special court, which shall verify the same and after satisfying itself, forward the same to the competent Authority, who shall distribute the assets without any delay. 11) Any residue shall be deposited into Special court for the court to pass suitable orders. 12) The committee shall fix a deadline of 30 days to receive the claims and enquire into them to finalize the list, preferably within three months thereafter. The Special court may extend such further time on request from the committee and the same shall not be beyond two months. 13) The Special Court shall have the power to supervise the proceedings of the Committee and the committee shall submit report to the Special court periodically and submit its final report on concluding the assignment. 14) For removal of any difficulty, the committee may approach the Special court for such direction and the Special court may pass such suitable orders within its power. 14) For removal of any difficulty, the committee may approach the Special court for such direction and the Special court may pass such suitable orders within its power. 15) Competent Authority, namely, The District Revenue Officer, Coimbatore is directed to take immediate steps to auction sale the attached properties and realise the money and keep the same in the Bank account which has already been opened in this matter. 16) The sale shall be effected within three months from the date of receipt of this order. 17) The Competent Authority shall take all the steps for the realisation and distribution of the amount to the depositors as per the list finalised as above. 22. As far the plea for bail for the petitioner is concerned, this court has been seized of this matter for the last eight months and has passed the following orders. On 12.08.2014 Learned counsel for the petitioner is present. Respondent CBI is also present and Mrs. Maheswari, learned counsel for the Intervenor is also present. Mr. S.B. Sankar, Additional Superintendent of Police, CBI, EOW, Chennai, who is the nominated Officer, as per the direction of this Curt, is also present today. The Nominated Office appraised the steps taken for repatriation of amounts in Singapore Accounts in RC12/E/2011-CBI/EOW/Chennai (CC 9/2011) This Court has requested the nominated Officer to consider whether this court can pass any order to supplement the efforts taken by the Department in repatriating the money deposited in foreign banks, particularly, in Singapore. The nominated Officer is also requested to circulate a paper on this to the concerned authorities of the Department and report to this court on 25.8.2014. Post the matter on 25.8.2014 On 25.8.2014 Learned counsel for the petitioner is present. Respondent CBI is also present and Mrs. Maheswari, learned counsel for the intervenor is also present. Mr. S.B. Sankar, Additional Superintendent of Police, CBI, EOW, Chennai, who is the nominated Officer, as per the direction of this court, is also present today. The Nominated Officer reported this Court that the papers were already been circulated as per the order of this court and the authorities in Singapore is also appraised of this matter and they are waiting for reply. Post the matter on 10.9.2014. On 10.9.2014 When the matter has been taken up today, Mr. The Nominated Officer reported this Court that the papers were already been circulated as per the order of this court and the authorities in Singapore is also appraised of this matter and they are waiting for reply. Post the matter on 10.9.2014. On 10.9.2014 When the matter has been taken up today, Mr. S.B. Sankar, Additional Superintendent of Police, CBI, EOW, Chennai, who is the nominated Officer submitted that the First Secretary (Consular), High Commission of India, Singapore is persuading the matter with the Attorney General Office, Singapore for the repatriation of amount available in the name of Mr. K. Mohanraj and the company represented by him in AANZ and HSBC Banks, Singapore. After hearing this court passed the following order: (i) The Special Court has already passed an order of confiscation as well as repatriation on 9.5.2012 of the said amount, against which, no appeal has been preferred by the accused and the confiscation order has become final. The above said orders have been communicated to Singapore authorities. (ii) The banks viz., ANZ and HSBC are directed repatriate the amount immediately as per the order passed by the competent Court. (iii) Mr. S.B. Sankar, Additional Superintendent of Police, CBI, EOW, Chennai is hereby directed to address Attorney General of Singapore through the First Secretary (Consular) to communicate the above directions to the bankers to act on the letters issued by Mr. K. Mohanraj and also on the orders passed by the competent court. If the bankers so wish, arrange for a video conference of Mr. K. Mohanraj with bankers to give direct instructions for repatriation of the amount. (iv) It is made clear that the amount lying in the above said banks has been confiscated in a criminal case and the competent court has passed an order of repatriation, which has become final. Therefore, the said banks are under obligation to give effect to the order. (v) It is also made clear that the account holder has requested the banks to retransfer the amount to the designated account in India, which amounts withdrawal of the amount and the bankers should no more hold the amounts. (vi) Mr. S.B. Sankar, Additional Superintendent of Police, CBI, EOW, Chennai is directed to convey this order as above said and file a report before this court on 22.9.2014. Post the matter on 22.9.2014 On 22.9.2014 Learned counsel for the petitioner is present. (vi) Mr. S.B. Sankar, Additional Superintendent of Police, CBI, EOW, Chennai is directed to convey this order as above said and file a report before this court on 22.9.2014. Post the matter on 22.9.2014 On 22.9.2014 Learned counsel for the petitioner is present. Respondent CBI is also present and Mrs. Maheswari, learned counsel for the intervenor is also present. Mr. S.B. Sankar, Additional Superintendent of Police, CBI, EOW, Chennai, who is the nominated Officer, as per the direction of this Court, is also present today. The Nodal Officer reported that the order passed by this Court on 10.9.2014 has been communicated to the First Secretary (Consular), High Commission of India, Singapore and the Singapore authorities and the progress is being made for repatriating the amount. The Nodal Officer also seeks time to report further progress. The Nodal Officer is also directed to inform the Curt about a positive answer of repatriation of the amount on the next date of hearing. On 27.10.2014: When the matter is taken up for hearing, Mr. S.B. Sankar, Additional Superintendent of Police, CBI, EOW, Chennai, is present. Mrs. Maheswari, the learned counsel for the intervenor is present and the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is also present. 2. Mr. S.B. Sankar, Additional Superintendent of Police, who is the nominated Officer, appraised before this court the steps taken by the CBI at Singapore through Foreign Affairs Ministry. This Court was appraised of that the banks at Singapore have called for certain particulars, which have been obtained from the petitioner and they have also been forwarded as requested by the Banks in Singapore. 3. Meanwhile, Mr. P. Jagadeesan, learned counsel for the petitioner produced G.O.Ms.No.324 dated 20.5.2013 and G.O.Ms.No.13-Home (Police XIX) Department dated 3.1.2014, wherein the Government has attached the movables and immovables of the accused concerned. 4. Therefore, there shall be a direction to the competent authority to bring the movables and immovables for auction, realise the amount and keep it in the account and report before this Court for the action taken. 5. Registry is directed to send a copy of the order to the competent authority through TANPID Court. 6. The respondent viz., CBI is requested to proceed with the matter. 7. 5. Registry is directed to send a copy of the order to the competent authority through TANPID Court. 6. The respondent viz., CBI is requested to proceed with the matter. 7. This Court makes it clear that it is inclined to pass any order in the event of bankers request for a telephonic conversation or video conference or any other mode of communication with the petitioner/accused to satisfy themselves. 8. The CBI is directed to forward a copy of the order to the First Secretary (Consular), High Commission of India, Singapore. Call this matter on 7th November, 2014. 23. The correspondence would show that the Banks at Singapore are not willing to part with the money deposited by the petitioner/accused. It is also evident that the Singapore authorities are placing reliance on the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act, (As amended in April 2006). The object of the Act under Sec.3 is as follows: Object of Act: 3. The object of this Act is to facilitate the provision and obtaining, by Singapore, of international assistance in criminal matters, including – (a) the provision and obtaining of evidence and things; (b) the making of arrangements for persons to give evidence or assist in criminal investigation; (c) the recovery, forfeiture or confiscation of property in respect of offences; (d) the restraining or dealings in property, or the freezing of assets, that may be recovered, forfeited or confiscated in respect of offences; (e) the execution of requests for search and seizure (f) the location and identification of witnesses and suspects; and (g) the service of documents. ... Part-III of the Act deals with the request that can be made to Singapore authorities. Sec.19 prescribes the request to be made to the Attorney General of Singapore. 24. Sec.22 deals with production order for criminal matters which reads as follows: 22. ... Part-III of the Act deals with the request that can be made to Singapore authorities. Sec.19 prescribes the request to be made to the Attorney General of Singapore. 24. Sec.22 deals with production order for criminal matters which reads as follows: 22. Production orders for criminal matters 22(1) Where a request is made by the appropriate authority of a prescribed foreign country that any particular thing or description of thing in Singapore be produced for the purposes of any criminal matter in that country, the Attorney-General or a person duly appointed by him may apply to the court for an order under subsection (3); (2) An application for an order under subsection (3) in relation to anything in the possession of a financial institution shall be made only to the High Court; (3) If, on such an application, the court is satisfied that the conditions referred to in subsection (4) are fulfilled, it may make an order that the person who appears to the court to be in possession of the thing to which the application relates shall – (a) produce the thing to an authorised officer for him to take away; or (b) give an authorised officer access to the thing, within 7 days of the date of the order or such other period as the couer considers appropriate. (4) The conditions referred to in subsection (3) are- (a) that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that a specified person has carried on or benefited from a foreign offence; (b) that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the thing to which the application relates – (i) is likely to be of substantial value (whether by itself or together with another thing) to the criminal matter in respect of which the application was made; and (ii) does not consist of or include items subject to legal privilege; and (c) that the Court is satisfied that it is not contrary to the public interest for the thing to be produced or that access to it be given. (5) The proceedings referred to in subsection (3) may be conducted in the presence or absence of the person to whom the criminal proceedings in the foreign country relates or of his legal representative (if any) (6) No person who is required by an order under this section to produce or make available any thing for the purposes of any criminal proceedings in a foreign country shall be required to produce any thing that the person could not be compelled to produce in the proceedings in that country. (7) A duly certified foreign law immunity certificate is admissible in proceedings under this section as prima facie evidence of the matters stated in the certificate. (8) Proceedings under subsection (3) shall be heard in camera. 25. Sec.27 deals with custody of persons in transit during Singapore. Custody of person in transit: 27.(1) A person who is in custody in a foreign country and has consented to give evidence or assistance in relation to a criminal matter in another foreign country may be transported through Singapore, in the custody of another person, to that other foreign country, if the first-mentioned foreign country gives prior notice of this to the Attorney General. (2) Where one of the foreign countries is a prescribed foreign country, the person being transported through Singapore in custody may, if an aircraft, vessel or train by which the person is being transported lands or calls in Singapore, be kept in such custody in Singapore with such authorised officer as the Attorney-General directs in writing until his transportation is continued. (3) Where – (a) a person is being held in custody pursuant to a direction under subsection (2); and (b) the person's transportation is not, in the opinion of the Attorney-General, continued within a reasonable time, the Attorney General may direct that the person be transported in custody to the foreign country from which the person was first transported, and such direction shall be sufficient authority for that person's removal from Singapore by such means as the Attorney-General directs. 26. Sec.29 to 32 deals with enforcement of foreign confiscation order. 27. It is evident that the respondent CBI is corresponding with the Indian High Commission at Singapore through the Ministry of External Affairs. 26. Sec.29 to 32 deals with enforcement of foreign confiscation order. 27. It is evident that the respondent CBI is corresponding with the Indian High Commission at Singapore through the Ministry of External Affairs. The Indian High Commission is corresponding with the Attorney General of Singapore for repatriation of the attached/confiscated movable property viz., various deposits made by the petitioner in Singapore. However, the banks are not retransmitting the amount which belong to the public in India and under attachment/confiscation by a competent court in India. Therefore, this court is of the view that unless the petitioner who is an under trial prisoner visits Singapore under the custody of an authorised officer of CBI, the matter will not be proceeded further for the effective repatriation of the amount. Therefore, it has become necessary to issue the following order: 28. Orders in respect of the petitioner to facilitate the repatriation amounts deposited in the Banks at Singapore namely; a) HSBC b) Royal Bank of Scotland (Erstwhile ABN Amro Bank) 29. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on the following conditions: 1) The petitioner is granted an Interim Bail for six months from date of his release from the Central Prison, Salem, on his executing a Bond for a sum of Rupees 50,00,000/- (Rupees fifty lakhs only) with two sureties each for like sum to the satisfaction of the Special Court for TANPID Cases at Coimbatore. 2) The petitioner shall reside at Chennai and appear before the office of the respondent at Chennai daily at 10.30 am and also report to Mr. S.B. Sankar, Additional Superintendent of Police, CBI, EOW, Chennai, who is the Nodal officer, appointed on the direction of this court except on those days of his appearing before the Special Court for TNPID Cases at Coimbatore and also before the One Man Committee at Coimbatore. 3) The petitioner shall apply to the Regional Passport Officer at Chennai for a travel document only to travel to Singapore or to the concerned office, which has the authority to issue such travel document. The Passport issuing Authority shall consider the purpose of this order namely repatriation of the huge amount deposited in Foreign Banks which belong to the Indian Public and the petitioner has necessarily to travel to Singapore as the Bankers are reluctant to release the amount without the personal authority and instruction of the depositor. The Passport issuing Authority shall consider the purpose of this order namely repatriation of the huge amount deposited in Foreign Banks which belong to the Indian Public and the petitioner has necessarily to travel to Singapore as the Bankers are reluctant to release the amount without the personal authority and instruction of the depositor. 4) If the petitioner has a valid passport, which is either in his possession or seized and produced before the Court, the same shall be produced before the concerned Regional Passport Officer along with this order and the concerned Regional Passport Officer is directed to revalidate for another six months if expired to make an endorsement that the document is valid only to travel to Sinagpore and not to any other countries. 5) On obtaining the Travel document, the petitioner shall apply for Singapore Visa at the High Commission of Singapore, and the Authority shall consider issuing Visitor’s Visa for appropriate period as per their rules and regulations and also under Sec.27 of the Singapore Mutual Assistant in Criminal Matters Act, 2006. 6) The Directorate of Central Bureau of Investigation shall depute the Authorised officer, Mr. S.B. Sankar, Additional Superintendent of Police, CBI, EOW, Chennai, as he has the complete knowledge about the entire case and has been facilitating the repatriation of huge amount deposited in Singapore Banks, which belong to the Indian public and permit him to travel along with the petitioner/A.1 to Singapore for effecting the repatriation. The necessary permission shall be accorded by the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, considering the necessity. 7) The entire travel expenses including the tickets, stay, transport and others shall be paid by the petitioner and apart from this, a sum Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) shall be deposited by the petitioner with the Special court to meet any emergency at the request of the authorised officer. 8) The Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, The High Commission of India, at Singapore shall extend all support to the authorised Nodal officer. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) shall be deposited by the petitioner with the Special court to meet any emergency at the request of the authorised officer. 8) The Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, The High Commission of India, at Singapore shall extend all support to the authorised Nodal officer. 9) The Special Court shall issue a Warrant of Custody of the petitioner/A.1 to the Nodal officer and such warrant shall stipulate that the petitioner shall be under the custody of the authorised officer by name for the entire period of stay in the foreign country; 10) The petitioner shall not leave or try to abscond from the guard of the authorised officer; in any such event the authorised officer shall be issued with a warrant of arrest and on production of the warrant with request, the Police at Singapore shall arrest the petitioner and hand over him to the authorised officer. For such purpose the Special Court shall issue a warrant of arrest of the petitioner empowering the Nodal officer to effect arrest. 11) The petitioner shall ensure and extend his fullest co operation in approaching the Attorney General Office in Singapore and his Bankers at Singapore, and give suitable instructions as required by them to re-transfer the amount to the Account of the District Revenue Officer, Tirupur, who is the competent authority. 12) The Banks at Singapore namely, A) Account No.260-671441-178 (USD) HSBC, Singapore b) Account No.260-671441-179(EURO)HSBC, Singapore c) Account No.147-805436-001(SD) HSBC, Singapore d) Account No.9311701799 in Royal Bank of Scotland (Erstwhile ABN Amro Bank) or any other company or concern with whom the amount belong to the petitioner is deposited shall act in respect of the above accounts, on the instruction of their customer as the amount is under the attachment of the Special Court, which has already been communicated to the Singapore Authorities. In any event, they shall not withhold or transfer the amount to any other account except to the account of the competent authority in India. 3) Petitioner’s stay in Singapore shall not be more than two weeks and he shall not remove himself from the custody of the authorised officer. If necessary the Special court may extend such time and not exceeding another seven days. 14) Mr. 3) Petitioner’s stay in Singapore shall not be more than two weeks and he shall not remove himself from the custody of the authorised officer. If necessary the Special court may extend such time and not exceeding another seven days. 14) Mr. S.B. Sankar, the Additional Superintendent of Police, CBI, who is designated as an authorised officer by this court , shall invoke the provisions of the Singapore Mutual Assistant Criminal Matters Act, 2006. He is authorised to approach the Attorney General of Singapore, Indian High Commission at Singapore seeking any support or help in this regard. Since the above said amounts were attached by the competent court in India, involving in a criminal office, the banks are directed to transmit the said amount to the account of the competent authority viz., the District Revenue Officer, Coimbatore under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Protection (TANPID) Act. 15) In the event of the petitioner not abiding of any condition imposed herein and also refuses to cooperate with the authorised officer, the authorised officer is directed to approach the Special Court, TANPID Act at Coimbatore for a warrant of arrest and arrest the petitioner and produce the petitioner before the court for remand and the interim bail order shall stand cancelled. 16) On expiry of the period of Interim Bail of six months, the petitioner shall surrender himself before the Special court and the Special court shall remand him for judicial custody. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the Special court or this court for subsequent bail which may be considered.