These applications arise from Crime No.1640 of 2014 of the Karunagapally Police Station and Crime No.703 of 2014 of Eravipuram Police Station, both for the offences punishable under Sections 13 of the Kerala Money Lenders Act (for short 'Act'), Section 420 and Section 511 of Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners who are Managers of the respective Branches of M/s. Sundaram Finance Limited (for short 'Company') apprehend arrest.
2. Applications are opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor. It is submitted that the respective Police conducted search in the branch offices of the aforesaid Company and seized several documents which include signed blank cheques and cheque leaves which mentioned the amount but which are not signed by the drawers.
3. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, attempt was to convert those documents into negotiable instruments and present the same for encashment. Thus, the customers are cheated and there was attempt to forge documents. It is also submitted that the branches of the Company are not having the required licence under the Act.
4. Learned Senior Advocate has submitted that the Company is registered under Section 45-IA of the RBI Act as a non-banking Company and as such does not require registration or licence under the Act. The question was raised in several writ petitions in this Court which went against the Company. The appeals arising therefrom were dismissed. Now the matter is pending consideration before the Supreme Court which has directed the parties to maintain status quo. According to the learned Senior Advocate, in view of that, registration of the case for the offence under the Act itself is not warranted. It is further argued that so far as allegation of cheating and alleged attempt to commit forgery is concerned, not even a single customer has made any such complaint.
5. At this stage, I need not go into the question whether licence or registration under the Act is necessary or not. Now the question is whether the petitioners are required for custodial interrogation? There is no case that any forgery has been committed, allegation being attempt to commit forgery. The documents are already seized by the investigating officers. In the light of that, I am satisfied that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required.
Applications are disposed of as under:
(i) Petitioners shall surrender before the officer investigating the respective crimes on 30.05.2014 at 10 a.m for interrogation.
(ii) If interrogation of the petitioners could not be completed that day, they shall appear before the officer investigating the case on the day/days and time as directed by him which the petitioners shall comply.
(iii) Petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation of the cases and shall produce the documents if any required by the investigating officers and in their custody, control and possession.
(iv) In case arrest of the petitioners is recorded, they shall be released by the arresting officers on each of them executing bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each before the arresting officers and subject to the following conditions:
(a) Petitioners shall report to the officers investigating the cases as and when required for interrogation at all reasonable time and place.
(b) Petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation of the cases.
(v) It is made clear that in case any of condition Nos. (a) & (b) is violated, it is open to the Investigating Officer to seek cancellation of the bail granted hereby by moving application before the jurisdictional magistrate as held in P.K. Shaji V. State of Kerala (AIR 2006 Supreme Court 100).
Sd/-
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE.
AS /True Copy/ P.A. to Judge