Point of law: transaction under which, one party deposits with the other or lends to that other a sum of money on promise of being paid interest at a rate higher than the agreed rate of interest cannot, without more, be a 'money circulation scheme' within the meaning of section 2(c) of the Act.

ORDER :

1. In all the above revision petitions, the applicants are common, the facts circumstances and evidence are also of similar nature, therefore, all are decided by this common order.

2. Cr.R. No. 577 of 2018 & Cr. R. 578 of 2018 have been brought against the order dated 11.09.2017, passed in Criminal Case No. 16911 of 2015 and Criminal Case No. 17129 of 2015 respectively, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur by which the application under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. for discharge has been dismissed and charges have been framed in both the cases by order dated 18.09.2017 for the offence under Section 409, 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Prize Chits Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978.

3. Cr.R. No. 1339 of 2019 has been brought against the order dated 11.03.2019, passed in Special Criminal Case No. 01 of 2018, passed by the Special Judge, Bemetara, District Bemetara, by which, charges have been framed against the applicants for commission of the offence under Section 420, 409 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3, 4 & 5 of the Prize Chits Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 and Section 10 of Protection of Depositors Interest Act, 2005.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants in all the cases, that framing of charges against the applicants in all three cases is erroneous and illegal, as there had been no prima-facie case present against these applicants for framing of such charges. The FIR that has been registered in all the cases, firstly does not mention the names of these applicants as the persons, who have cheated the complainant. The applicant – Amandeep Singh Saran was one of the director of H.B.N. Dairy & Allied Limited in the year 1998 under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956. The applicant – Rakesh Tomar was also one of the directors for a limited period. It was the business of the company to seek investment from investors in the business of the company and part of the profit was assured to the investors. The CIS regulations were framed in 1999, subsequent to the initiation of the business of the company. SEBI has examined the business of this company by calling documents and held vide order dated 12.07.2013, that the business of the company was of collective investment scheme. As there had been some irregularities, therefore, the SEBI directed the company to discontinue the business. The company of the applicants then moved to make repayment to the investors. It is submitted that then SEBI by final order dated 12.02.2015 provided opportunity to the applicant to make repayment to the investors on or before 09.03.2015. The company has acted in accordance with the direction of SEBI and repaid the amount to various investors in Chhattisgarh. The property acquired from investments have been surrendered by the company, which is value of Rs.1400 Crores. Therefore, the applicants' company did not have any dishonest intention. As soon as the direction and orders were issued by the SEBI, the company of the applicants started making repayments to the investors from the year 2013, but then the offence against the company were registered in the year 2015. There does not exist sufficient material in the chargesheet against the applicants for framing of charge. Because of the registration of FIR, the applicants' company is now unable to dispose of its property, which has become hindrance in making repayment to the investors. The applicants' company has challenged the order dated 12.02.2015 of SEBI, before the Securities Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai, in which the tribunal has ordered and directed SEBI to sale out the property surrendered by the company and make payment to the investors, which further shows that the company of the applicants had no intention to cheat the investors. SEBI has failed to sell out the properties surrendered by the applicants' company and on the other hand, it has directed the company of the applicants to do the same within a period of 26 da