Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RMT. TEEKAA RAMAN, J.
S. Kanagam - Appellant
Versus
The State represented by the Inspector of Police, EOW II Wing, Namakkal - Respondent
Crl.R.C. No. 408 of 2018
Decided on : 25-10-2021
Criminal Revision petition – Indian penal code,1860 - Sections 120(B), 406, 420, 467, 468 – Criminal Procedure code, 1973 - Section 161, 239, 397, 401 - Tamil Nadu protection of Interests of Depositors, 1997 - Section 5 - Criminal breach of trust – Forgery - Petitioner had purchased two Route Buses from funds of financial institutions in her favour - Petitioner accused to prove that offence took place without her knowledge, that exercise of due diligence to prevent such offence only when the prosecution accepts that the requested condition mentioned in Section 5 of TNPID Act is established – Held, it is the test that is required at stage of Section 227 of Criminal Procedure Code while dealing with Sections 227, 228 and 209 Cr.P.C., and its scope and ambit of powers of trial Court under Section 227, the Supreme Court has held that if two views are equally possible and Judge is satisfied that evidence produced gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, he would be fully within his right to discharge accused and at this state, he is not to see whether trial will end in conviction or not and expression “not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused” appearing in Section 227, is explained” - No material available on record calling upon the petitioner to face the trial and she cannot be roped in, under Section 5 of TNPID Act - Criminal Revision Case allowed.
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: This Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records in Crl.M.P.No.3724 of 2017 in C.C.No.31 of 2013, on the file of the learned Special Judge for TNPID cases at Coimbatore and to set aside the order dated 16.03.2018 in Crl.M.P.No.3724 of 2017.)
1. The accused No.4 is the revision petitioner herein.
2. The revision petitioner herein has filed a petition under Section 239 of Cr.P.C to discharge her from the offence under Sections 120(B), 406, 420, 467, 468 of IPC and Section 5 of the Tamil Nadu protection of Interests of Depositors, in Cr.M.P.No.3724 of 2017, which was dismissed. Hence, the present Criminal Revision Case.
3. The brief facts leading to file of this Criminal Revision Case are as under:
(b) After the investigation, the respondent police has filed the final report as against the accused persons for the alleged offence u/s 120(B), 406, 420, 467, 468 of IPC and Section 5 of Tamil Nadu protection of Interests of Depositors, 1997.
(c) It is alleged that during the investigation it was revealed that first accused/M/s. Chellam Emu Farms and Velaval Garden City Developments were started and registered by A2/Sivakumar and A3/R.Gangadevi. A1 concern was run by A2 & A3 along with the revision petitioner/A4 viz., Kangam, who is the mother of A2. A10/Saranya was worked as a Manager. It is further alleged that they have induced and collected the deposit amount from the investors and cheated them and further, the revision petitioner/A4 had purchased two Route Buses from the funds of financial institutions.
(d) The respondent police has filed two final reports before the Trial Court. Total number of witnesses and default amount summarized as follows:
Witnesses
Investors
Default Amount
1st Charge Sheet
1 to 427
1 to 392
(392 investors) 6,80,38,840/-
2nd Charge Sheet 428 to 485
428 to 484
(57 investors) 1,23,83,100/-
Total 449 Investors 8,04,21,940/-
(e) The respondent police originally filed the charge sheet against the 10 accused persons and this Court quashed the charges against the four accused persons. Details of the accused as per prosecution case as follows.
A1Firm
A2 –Sivakumar Partner of the firm
A3 Ganga Devi Partner of the firm
A4 Kanagam Mother of 2nd accused
A5 Kanagaraj
A6 Shanthi
Sister of 2nd accused
Charges quashed by this Court in Crl.OP.No. 33156 of 2013
A7 Baskar
Charges quashed by this Court in Crl.OP.No. 24420 of 2014
A8 Pari vallal
Charges quashed by this Court in Crl.OP.No. 1979 of 2014
A9 Ragunathan
Charges quashed by this Court in Crl.OP.No. 1141 of 2014
A10 Saranya
The respondent police has produced 485 documents along with the Final Report.
4. Heard both the learned counsels and perused the materials placed on record.
5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner herein/fourth accused would contend that there is no allegation constituting any material to frame the charges and that the Trial Court has rejected the discharge petition on the ground that LW400, LW401, LW402 LW406 gave statement to the effect that the fourth accused came to the office of the defaulted A1 (partnership firm) and also collected the deposit amount to home and none of the witnesses have whispered nothing against the accused.
6. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the appellant would relied upon the judgment reported in 2017 SCC online Madras 22970 -in Crl.R.C.No.185 of 2013 - K.A.Gunasekaran Vs. The State Inspector of Police, Economic Offence Wing II, Vellore District and others and contend that the statement of
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
