JUDGMENT

H B Prabhakara Sastry, J. - This Revision Petition was initially filed by the two petitioners, however, due to the death of petitioner No.1 Sri Ravindra, by the order of this Court dated 13.7.2017, the Revision Petition of the said petitioner No.1 in so far as sentence of imprisonment is concerned stood abated. The memorandum of petition was amended accordingly.

2. The summary of the case of the prosecution is that the revision petitioners were conducting the Prize Chit activity, in which, PWs.1 to 6 were members and had invested some money. The petitioners with an intention to deceive the said investors, wound up their Prize Chit activity and did not repay the investment made or subscription paid by the investors and thereby have committed an offence under Section 3, which is punishable under Section 4 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'Prize Chits Act'), and also an offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'IPC').

Since the accused pleaded not guilty, the trial was held by the learned V Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'trial Court'), in C.C.No.5032/1999, wherein from the side of the prosecution, seven witnesses from PW-1 to PW-7 were examined and documents from Exs.P-1 to P-12 were marked. From the accused side, neither any witness was examined nor any documents were marked as exhibits.

3. After hearing both side, the trial Court by its impugned judgment dated 4.8.2007, convicted both the petitioners/accused for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of Prize Chits Act and sentenced them accordingly.

4. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the trial Court, the accused preferred an appeal before the learned City Fast Track (Sessions) Judge, Bengaluru City, (FTC-VI), (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'Session Judge's Court), in Criminal Appeal No.1041/2007, which Court after hearing both side, by its impugned judgment dated 7.8.2010, dismissed the appeal filed by the accused, confirming the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the trial Court. It is against the said judgments of the trial Court and Session Judge's Court, the accused have preferred this petition. However, as already observed, the accused No.1/petitioner No.1 died during the pendency of this Revision Petition. The petitioner No.2 is prosecuting this Revision Petition through her counsel.

5. Trial Court and Session Judge's Courts' records were called for and the same are placed before this Court.

6. Heard the arguments of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent and perused the materials placed before this Court.

7. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred to as per their ranks before the trial Court.

8. After hearing, the points that arise for my consideration are :

(1) Whether the impugned judgments of conviction and order on sentence passed by the trial Court and the Session Judge's Court suffers with any illegality, impropriety or perversity?

(2) Whether the impugned judgments of conviction and order on sentence deserves any interference at the hands of this Court?

9. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in his argument fairly submitted that he would not dispute the concurrent finding of the trial Court and the Session Judge's Court on the fact that the accused were conducting the chit business and the complainant had subscribed to some of the chits with them by investing money. However, he strongly disputes the findings of the Courts below that the accused were conducting any Prize Chit activity falling within the purview of Section 3 of Prize Chits Act and that the accused have committed any act of cheating which is punishable under Section 420 of IPC. Learned Seni