Belated Complaints in Economic Offences Won't Necessarily Make Victims Witnesses; Speedy Trial is Paramount under TNPID Act: Madras High Court

Late Complainants in Neomax Scam Not to be Added as Witnesses to Ensure Speedy Trial: Madras High Court

MADURAI: In a significant order concerning the high-profile Neomax economic offence case, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has ruled that investors who filed their complaints after the court-mandated deadline will not be added as witnesses in the ongoing criminal proceedings. Justice B. Pugalendhi emphasized that the primary objective of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (TNPID) Act, 1997, is the speedy recovery of funds, and adding thousands of witnesses would unnecessarily delay justice for all.

---

Case Background

The court was hearing a batch of petitions filed by several investors who had deposited large sums of money with Neomax Properties Limited and its affiliated companies. The petitioners alleged that they were lured by promises of high returns and land as security, but were ultimately cheated. They sought a direction to the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) to expedite the investigation in Crime No. 3 of 2023, include them in the list of victims and witnesses, and record their statements.

The case involves a massive financial scam, with the EOW reporting that as of July 24, 2025, it had received 14,460 complaints from depositors, with the total amount involved exceeding ₹1866 crores.

Arguments from Both Sides

• Petitioners' Counsel argued that their clients were bona fide victims who had lodged complaints with the police. They contended that since no action was taken on their individual complaints, the court should direct the EOW to include them as formal witnesses to strengthen the prosecution's case.

• The Additional Public Prosecutor , representing the EOW, countered that the investigation was at an advanced stage. He informed the court that a preliminary charge sheet was already prepared on July 14, 2025, and was being filed. He pointed out that the High Court had previously, in an order dated October 19, 2024, set a clear cut-off date of November 15, 2024, for all depositors to submit their complaints. The current petitioners, described as "fence-sitters," had filed their complaints well after this deadline. Adding them as witnesses now would derail the entire legal process.

Court's Rationale: Prioritizing Speedy Justice

Justice B. Pugalendhi, in a common order, declined the petitioners' plea to be added as witnesses, underscoring the legislative intent behind the TNPID Act. The court held that the paramount goal is to ensure a swift recovery of the depositors' money, not to conduct a prolonged trial by examining every single victim.

Citing the Supreme Court's judgment in Sarwan Singh And Ors. vs. State Of Punjab (1976) , the court observed:

"It is not the law that the omission to examine any and every witness even on minor points would undoubtedly lead to rejection of the prosecution case... it is the quality rather than the quantity of the evidence that matters."

The court reasoned that the prosecution is not mandated to examine every victim to prove its case, especially in large-scale economic offences. Doing so would consume precious judicial time and defeat the purpose of the special enactment.

The judgment highlighted a critical concern:

"The possibility of such witnesses being set up by the accused to delay the legal process cannot be ruled out completely."

Final Directions

While denying the request to be added as witnesses, the court ensured the petitioners' rights as victims were protected. The High Court issued the following directions:

1. Separate List: The petitioners and other late complainants will be included in a separate "List-2," which will be maintained and updated on the EOW's official website.
2. Property Attachment: The EOW was directed to consider the information provided by the petitioners regarding the properties owned by the accused and initiate attachment proceedings if necessary, in coordination with the valuation committees.
3. No Addition as Witnesses: The petitioners shall not be added as witnesses in Crime No. 3 of 2023 to avoid further delays.
4. Right to Recovery: The petitioners remain entitled to get their deposits back once their claims are verified and recovery is made under the provisions of the TNPID Act.

This order sets a crucial precedent in managing large-scale economic offence cases, balancing the rights of individual victims with the overarching need for an efficient and speedy trial to bring perpetrators to justice and facilitate the recovery of public money.