Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R. MALA
Ponnusamy & Others
Versus
Inspector of Police
Crl.A.No.987 of 2003
Decided On :11-01-2010
Prize Chits - Money Circulation Schemes - Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978, Section 3, 4, 5 - The court discussed the provisions of Sections 2(c) and 2(e) of the Act and emphasized the need for the prosecution to prove the elements of a money circulation scheme and prize chit scheme beyond reasonable doubt. The court highlighted the failure of the prosecution to establish crucial elements such as the motive for making quick or easy money, the contingency relative to the enrollment of members, and the identification of subscribers and prize winners. The court also emphasized the importance of examining the printer of the pamphlets and the owner of the Marriage Hall, as well as the necessity of seizing the draw machine and other prize materials. The judgment focused on the lack of evidence and proper investigation, leading to the acquittal of the appellants.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted for conducting a draw scheme under the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978. The prosecution's case relied on evidence related to the draw, pamphlet distribution, and seizure of materials. The appellants challenged the conviction, citing lack of trustworthiness in the evidence and deficiencies in the investigation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the presence of crucial elements required to establish a money circulation scheme and prize chit scheme beyond reasonable doubt. It highlighted the lack of evidence regarding the motive for making quick or easy money, the contingency relative to the enrollment of members, and the identification of subscribers and prize winners. The court also emphasized the importance of examining the printer of the pamphlets and the owner of the Marriage Hall, as well as the necessity of seizing the draw machine and other prize materials. Consequently, the appellants were acquitted due to the lack of evidence and proper investigation.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the trustworthiness of the evidence, deficiencies in the investigation, and the prosecution's failure to establish crucial elements required under the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the failure of the prosecution to prove the essential elements of a money circulation scheme and prize chit scheme beyond reasonable doubt. It emphasized the necessity of establishing the motive for making quick or easy money, the contingency relative to the enrollment of members, and the identification of subscribers and prize winners. The court also highlighted the importance of examining the printer of the pamphlets and the owner of the Marriage Hall, as well as the necessity of seizing the draw machine and other prize materials.
Final Decision: The appellants were acquitted due to the lack of evidence and proper investigation, leading to the setting aside of the conviction and sentence of fine imposed on them by the trial Court.
The Criminal Appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and sentence of fine, in C.C.No.45 of 2002 on the file of the First Additional District-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrates Court, Coimbatore, whereby the first appellant/A.1, second appellant/A.2, third appellant/A.3 and the fourth appellant/A.5 were convicted for the offence under Section 3 read with Sections 4 and 5 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 and each sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. A-4 was acquitted of the charges.
2. The case of the prosecution is as follows:
(a) On 13.1.2002 at about 9 p.m., when P.W.1 Loganathan, the resident of Hope College, was at his shop, he received some pamphlets, in which it was printed that on 13.1.2002 at D.A.R. Marriage Hall, Chinniyampalayam, auction is going to take place for sale of house-sites. Accordingly, he went to that place at 9 p.m. on that day. There were five persons and in that auction, they have announced several prizes, in which, the first prize was stated to be Maruthi Car, which was stated to have been given to one lady of Kangeyam and they have also announced the second prize to six persons.
(b) When P.W.1 came to know that the people gathered at the Marriage Hall, they told P.W.1 that they have remitted the amount for purchase of house-sites on instalment basis, that the draw was being conducted for the first month, that it would be conducted on 13th month and 36th month and the draw winners will be given house-site. They have further told that they have remitted the first instalment amount.
(c) Since P.W.1 suspected that the draw scheme is against the Money Circulation Act, he gave Ex.P-2 complaint before B.6 Peelamedu Police Station, stating that A-1 and A2 conducted the draw and A-3 to A-5 were along with A-1 and A-2. P.W.8 Inspector of Police received Ex.P-2 complaint from P.W.1 and registered a case at about 10.30 p.m. on the same day in Cr.No.60 of 2002 for the offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978. He prepared Ex.P-9 F.I.R.
(d) P.W.8 Inspector of Police took up the matter for investigation and went to the place of occurrence at about 11.15 p.m. and prepared Ex.P-3 observation mahazar in the presence of P.W.5 and other witness and drew Ex.P-10 rough sketch. At the mid-night at 12 Oclock, he recovered Ex.P-5 series of 24 cheques, Ex.P-6 series of four receipt books, Ex.P-7 series of agents forms in 115 numbers and Ex.P-8 series of notices in four numbers, M.O.1 Maruthi Car, etc., under Ex.P-4 seizure mahazar in the presence of the same witnesses. He arrested A-1 to A-5 and released them on that day. He examined the witnesses P.W.1 Loganathan, P.W.2 Raja, P.W.3 Kubendran, P.W.5 Subramaniam and others and recorded their statements. On 15.1.2002, he examined P.W.6 Jeevanandam, P.W.4 Kumar and P.W.7 Rajendran and recorded their statements.
(e) P.W.2 Raja and P.W.3 Kubendran, who are the taxi drivers, took the intended purchasers to the flats and also stated that they will bring some people to the Marriage Hall. P.W.4 Kumar is the real estate broker. P.W.5 Subramaniam is the President of Chinniyampalayam Panchayat Union. P.W.5 deposed that the accused were doing real estate business at the house-site at NPS Nagar in Neelambiri. They advertised the same in newspapers as well as by issuing pamphlets that they would conduct a draw on 13.1.2002.
(f) P.W.8 Inspector of Police completed his investigation and filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act.
(g) The trial Court framed charges against the accused and the accused denied the charges. On the side of prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 8 were examined, Exs.P-1 to P-10 were marked and M.O.1 was produced.
(h) After the questioning of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., on the side of defence, D.W.1 Su
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
