SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2006 Supreme(Ker) 367

Judges : V.K.BALI,P.R.RAMAN
Achamma Chacko - Appellant
Versus
Government of Kerala, Represented by its Chief Secretary - Respondent
Case No : W.P.(C).Nos.12775 & 13152 of 2006 (S) & Crl.M.C.No.1377 of 2006
Decided On : 07/05/2006
Advocates Appeared :
For the Petitioners: U.U. Lalith (SR.), P. Vijaya Bhanu, P. Santhosh (Poduval), Advocates. For the Respondents: R1 to 4, M. Ajay, Sr. Government Pleader, R5, S. Saju, R6, Sajeev Kumar K. Gopal, Binoy Vasudevan, R7 to R12, K. Gopalakrishna Kurup, R13 to R15, C.C. Thomas, Advocates.

Headnote:

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 149, 482 - Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act 1978 - Sections 3, 4 & 5 - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Sections 415 & 420 - Police Investigation - Court Interference - Held, investigating agency will be justified in launching prosecution, if the contents in the FIR and other supporting materials may disclose commission of some crime - Police officers would have every right to prevent such crime - If the scheme evolved by the petitioners which of course is their business may result into commission of any cognizable offence, the police investigating the crime can very well prevent it and that can be done only by slapping an order of closure of such business - Depositors and the promoters are animated by a community of interest in the matter of the scheme being dependent upon any event or contingency relatable or applicable to the enrolment of members into it does not mean that such mutuality may be in writing or by a definite promise - Such mutuality even if required may be spelt out from the conduct of the parties discernible on number of factors such as advertisements made in writings or through medias like newspapers, television, etc - Activity carried out on in a larger and massive scale resulting into non-payment of the promised amount to the subscribers would prima facie be an offence -Even if some of the offences mentioned in may not be made out as per the allegations contained in the FIR and accompanying materials, but when it may appear that said allegations would constitute some of the offences mentioned in FIR or some other offences with which petitioners may be ultimately sent for trial by the Investigating agency, it would not be a case for quashing the FIR.

Judgment :-

V.K. Bali, C.J.

A partnership firm with the name and style “M/s. LIS, Ernakulam” is said to be conducting the business of making available Government lottery tickets to the public under the Multi Level Marketing Principle in partnership. As per its own showing, the partnership has registered three lakhs members in the scheme evolved by it. Though it is not mentioned in sufficient details in the writ petitions or criminal miscellaneous case, but as revealed during the investigation and not disputed during the course of arguments, the managing committee of the trust stated to be P.V. Chacko, Kuriachan Chacko and Joy John met on 11.11.2002 and decided to permit Kurian Chacko to conduct lottery ticket business in the brand name LIS. Kurian Chacko was to conduct the business of his own either as a proprietary concern or as a partnership or as a limited company. Kuriachan Chacko had to make available necessary funds for the trust and its members. In pursuance of the resolution, Kuriachan Chacko along with one Achamma Chacko and Linu Joy who are wives of the trustees of the trust formed a partnership vide Deed dated 12.11.2002. The name of the film as per the deed is M/s. LIS, Ernakulam and the registered office of the film is stated to be that of the office of the trust itself. The partnership deed further provides that the main business of the film shall be arranging online and paper lottery tickets to the public. The firm is seen registered with the Registrar of Films, Trivandrum on 26.11.2002 with No.1741/02 and the duration of the firm is stated to be five years. As per the certificate issued by the Registrar of Firms the name of the firm is M/s. LIS with three partners Kuriachan Chacko, Achamma Chacko and Linu Joy. The firm LIS (Regd) is conducting Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme throughout the State of Kerala in the name LIS Deepasthambam Project. The business of these persons claimed to be geuine, even though styled by the investigating agency as under the bogus name LIS (Regd), is making advertisement in all leading dailies and through visual medias offering fabulous returns for deposits from the public. The nature of business is that an individual has to deposit Rs.625/- per unit or multiplies thereof. For each unit a member is given lottery ticket worth Rs.350/- purchased over 35 week at Rs.10/- per week and subscribes Rs.275/- to a magazine called ‘Trikalam” alleged to be published by LIS Printers and Publishers. Besides the above, they offer Rs.1052/- to every member holding one unit, the details of which are as follows:

“Amount to be paid to a member per unit : Rs.1250/-

Less service charge of LIS : Rs.100/-

Less commission earned by LIS from

Purchase of lottery i.e. 28% of Rs.350/- : Rs.98/-

Balance to be paid to each member : Rs.1052/-

The amount of Rs.625/- is collected as a deposit.”

The firm is purchasing lottery tickets, preserving the same, informing its members the particular ticket numbers and the results thereof and also making arrangements for disbursement of prize amount and irrespective of as to whether a member enrolled by the firm gets any prize on the tickets purchased on his name or not is assured of an amount of Rs.1250/- in the manner mentioned above.

2. The facts as mentioned above led to registration of an FIR against the members of the firm under various sections of different statutes to be mentioned hereinafter. In as much as, the activities indulged in by the offending partners of the firm is covered under various statutes, with a view to curb it, a ban order naturally resulting into closure of the business of the partnership firm has also been passed.

3. Achamma Chacko, wife of P.V. Chacko, the managing partner of the firm, and P.V. Chacko, the Chairman of the same firm, have filed W.P.(C).No.12775 of 2006 calling in question Ext.P4 dated 10.5.2006 issued by Bernard Dev, A.C.P., Crime Detachment, Kochin City directing the Chairman of the firm to stop collection of money in any way fr















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top