Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

  • High Court of Karnataka held that petition under Section 438 for an anticipatory bail or Section 439 for bail of CrPC shall not be maintainable offences under Karnataka Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act, 2004 (KPIDFE)when incorporated in FIR.
  • A single judge bench of Justice Rajendra Badamikar stated that the accused aggrieved by the dismissal of bail plea can file an appeal under Section 16.
  • The petitioner is the director of a company ho was booked under Sections 420, 419, 406, 403, 120-B, and 506 of IPC, Sections 4 and 9 of the KPIDFE, 2004 Act.
  • The FIR was filed after the complainant did not receive any share or refund despite his investment in the company.
  • The FIR was filed under Section 420 IPC and the Sessions Court rejected the application made by the petitioner for regular bail.
  • Later charges under the KPIDFE act were added.
  • The High Court held that the bail petition filed under Section 439 of CrPC was not barred when initially the offence was barred under Section 420 CrPC.
  • The present case came into an issue when provisions of the KPIDFE Act were incorporated.
  • The bench further added that the petitioner has a remedy under KPIDFE Act but the petitioner stated he did not challenge the Special Court’s order.
  • The High Court held that it is evident from pleadings that the petitioner is aggrieved by the orders of the Special Court and the relief was sought for bail.
  • The bail was sought for offences under IPC and KPIDFE Act, 2004.
  • Any order passed under KPIDFE Act is to be passed only by the Special Court, be it under Section 439 of CrPC or otherwise, and is appealable.
  • The bench rejected the contention of the petitioner that statutory restriction under the 2004 Act would not oust the jurisdiction of the court under Section 439 CrPC and held that the order of the learned Special Judge for an offence under Section 9 of the KPIDFE Act was concerningthe rejection of bail, for which the petitioner was aggrieved.
  • Section 16 of KPIDFE Act provides for a specific bar in challenging any petition other than appeals and Section 19 provides for overriding effect.
  • Referring to Section 18(2) of the 2004 act, it was noted that Section 438 of CrPC shall not apply to KPIDFE Act which bars anticipatory bail.
  • However, the section’s interpretation reads as giving overriding effect over other provisions of law.
  • The court finally held that petitions under Sections 438 and 439 of CrPC shall not be maintainable in the purview of offences of KPIDFE Act and the only remedy available is an appeal under Section 16 of the act.
  • The petition, therefore, was dismissed and petitioners were at the liberty to file an appeal.
     
"Loved reading this piece by Kavya Sri?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"




Tags :

  Views  35  Report



Comments
img
Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query