2025:KER:12610 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 13TH CHAITHRA, 1947 CRL.MC NO. 6918 OF 2024 CRIME NO.250/2024 OF Edathua Police Station, Alappuzha PETITIONER: N.M RAJU , AGED 64 YEARS S/O. GEORGE, NEDUMPARAMBIL GARDENS,THIRUVALLA P.O.,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689101 BY ADVS. JAI GEORGE DAISY A.PHILIPOSE M.NARENDRA KUMAR RESPONDENTS: 1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2 SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME [SC] DEPARTMENT, THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY UNDER THE BANNING OF UNREGULATED DEPOSIT SCHEMES ACT, 2019,ROOM NO: 374, MAIN BLOCK, SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001 3 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, EDATHUAA POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-, PIN - 689573 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.M.C. No.6918 of 2024 2025:KER:30684 2 ORDER Dated this the 3rd day of April, 2025 The petitioner is the 1st accused in Crime No.250 of 2024 registered at the Edathwa Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 420 read with 34 of IPC. The police after commencing investigation, filed an additional report adding Section 406 of IPC and Section 3 read with 21 and Section 5 read with 23 of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019 ('the BUDS Act' for short). While so, the 2nd respondent issued Annexure A5 order under Section 7(3) of the BUDS Act attaching all movable/immovable properties and other deposits held by the petitioner and his partnership firm named M/s.Nedumparambil Credit Syndicate. Although petitioner is seeking to get the crime and further proceedings against him quashed, Crl.M.C. No.6918 of 2024 2025:KER:30684 3 the argument is focused upon the legality of Annexure A5 order. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that Annexure A5 order is no longer in subsistence, since the application seeking confirmation of the provisional attachment was not filed within the time stipulated in Section 14(1) of the BUDS Act. It is pointed out that the order is dated 31.07.2024 and as per Section 14(1), the application for confirmation should be filed before the Designated Court, within an outer limit of 60 days. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that, even if the application under Section 14(1) is not submitted within the stipulated time, the Competent Authority can pass a fresh order under Section 7(3). 4. As per Section 14(1), the Competent Authority is bound to file an application for making Crl.M.C. No.6918 of 2024 2025:KER:30684 4 the provisional attachment absolute within a period of 30 days, which, for reasons to be recorded, may extend upto 60 days. In the case at hand, there is no dispute to the fact that such an application was not filed within 60 days. This Court in Highrich Online Shoppe Private Limited v. Competent Authority [2024 KHC OnLine 1237] has held that there is no provision for condoning the delay in filing the application for confirmation. The contextually relevant portion of that order is extracted below for easy reference; “18. The law thus explained is that when the special provision enables the court, in a case where the appellant or applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal or application within the prescribed period, to allow it to be presented within a further period fixed therein, the appeal or application has to be submitted within that period and not thereafter. The intention of the legislature in including such a provision for extension of the period of limitation is to completely exclude application of S.5 of the Limitation Act. Crl.M.C. No.6918 of 2024 2025:KER:30684 5 19. In the light of the proposition of law that emerges from the aforesaid decisions, S.14(1) of the BUDS Act can be interpreted only in the way that there is exclusion of application of S.5 of the Limitation Act. Therefore, the view taken by the Special Court that the delay could be condoned applying S.5 of the Limitation Act is incorrect. Crl.M.P.No.2514 of 2024 which was filed seeking to condone the delay of 71 days therefore was to be dismissed.” In the light of the above legal position, the contention that Annexure A5 order has no legal validity now, is liable to be accepted. The Criminal Miscellaneous Case is hence allowed by quashing Annexure A5 order, without prejudice to the right of the 2nd respondent to take further steps in accordance with law. Sd/- V.G.ARUN JUDGE NB/3/4 Crl.M.C. No.6918 of 2024 2025:KER:30684 6 APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 6918/2024 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO. 250 OF 2024 OF EDATHWA POLICE STATION IN ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT Annexure A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE MONEY LENDING LICENSE NO.32040317046 DATED 25/8/2023 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, TAX PAYER SERVICE DIVISION, CHEGANNUR Annexure A3 A TRUE COPY OF THE E-PAYMENT RECEIPT FOR REGISTRATION RENEWAL OF M/S. NEDUMPARAMBIL CREDIT SYNDICATE HAVING THE REGISTRATION RENEWAL APPLICATION ID:320403/D108/609/2024 Annexure A4 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 6.8.2024 RECEIVED FROM THALAVADY BRANCH MANAGER OF THE FEDERAL BANK Annexure A5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER SC3/96/2024/HOME DATED 31.7.2024 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE