Conviction
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. HEMALATHA, J.
G. Malliga & Another – Appellants
Versus
State Represented by The Inspector of Police, Erode – Respondent
Crl. A. No. 9 of 2022
Decided On : 18-08-2023
TNPID Act - Poultry Farm Investment Scheme - Sections 120(b), 420 IPC and Section 5 of TNPID Act - The court analyzed the purpose, provisions, and effect of the TNPID Act and found the accused guilty of cheating investors through false promises. The court also discussed the involvement of the accused, their denial of the offence, and the lack of evidence on their side. The court acquitted one accused and modified the sentence for another.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a poultry farm investment scheme where investors were promised high returns but were not repaid. The accused denied the offence, citing business failure and lack of direct involvement. The trial court found all accused guilty and sentenced them, leading to the present appeal by two of the accused.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the accused guilty of cheating investors through false promises and upheld the conviction of one accused while acquitting another. The court also acknowledged the greed of the investors but held the accused accountable for their actions.
Issues: The issues involved the substantiation of cheating by the prosecution, the involvement of the accused in the scheme, and the denial of the offence by the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the unrebutted evidence of the prosecution, the purpose and provisions of the TNPID Act, and the lack of clarity in the accused's explanations. The court also evaluated the involvement of each accused and the lack of evidence on their side.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the appeal, acquitted one accused, and modified the sentence for another. The court also acknowledged the role of the legal aid counsel and directed the Legal Service Authority to pay the counsel's fee.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 against the judgment dated 09.12.2020, passed by the learned Special Judge, Special Court under TNPID Act, Coimbatore, in C.C.No.11 of 2014.)
1. The present appeal by the A4 and A5, the mother and son duo, G.Malliga and G. Mugesh, is against the Judgment dated 09.12.2020, passed by the learned Special Judge, Special Court under TNPID Act, Coimbatore, in C.C.No.11 of 2014.
2. The Inspector of Police, EOW-II, Erode laid a charge sheet against six accused A1 to A6. A1 and A2 were M/s. Raja Rajeshwari Poultry farms and M/s. Sri Raja Rajeshwari Poultry farms at Vijayamangalam, Erode District, respectively. A3, S.K. Ganesan (since deceased) and his wife G.Mallika (A4) were the partners in the said firms since March 2012 and the A1 firm was duly registered with the Registrar of Firms, Salem vide Registration No.199/2012. A5 and A6 are G.Mukesh and G.Manoj Kumar, two sons of the couple. The case against A6 was split up as C.C. No.3 of 2020 since he was a minor then.
2.1. There are as many as 75 investors who were allegedly lured by the advertisement given by the A3 and A4, partners of both the poultry farms. The scheme floated by them was that whoever is interested in investing a minimum of Rs.1 lakh in the Poultry farm would be provided a shed, 375 country chicks, feed, other expertise including medical assistance for 3 months, monthly returns of Rs.7,000/-, taking back the chicks after three months and return of the entire Rs.1 lakh after 3 years.
2.2. All the 75 investors, it appears, were lured by the advertisement in the local dailies and invested sums ranging from Rs.1 lakh to Rs.3 lakhs expecting huge returns. The scheme which was successful in the beginning was aborted midway and the original investment amounts were not returned. The aggrieved investors approached the police. Thiru.Manivannan, the Special Sub Inspector of Police, Perundurai Police Station, received the complaints and registered an FIR (Ex.P.213) in Crime No.1081/2012 on 20.12.2012 under Section 420 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and sent the FIR copy to Vivekanandan (P.W.81), Circle Inspector of Police, Perundurai Police Station who made further enquiries and recorded the statements of some affected investors and sent the file to EOW, Erode. Later all the 75 investors were examined and their statements were recorded. The final report was submitted by Soundararajan (P.W.83), Inspector of Police on 27.09.2014 against the accused under Sections 120(b), 420 IPC and Section 5 of TNPID Act. He had also arrested Mallika (A4) on 20.01.2014 near Perundurai bus stop. Finally Karunakaran (P.W.84) (Investigationg Officer) filed additional charge sheet under Sections 120(b), 420 IPC and Section 5 of TNPID Act.
2.3. In the trial, the prosecution brought in 84 witnesses and adduced as many as 218 exhibits to prove the guilt of the accused. No material objects were there as no asset was seized from the accused. All the investors P.W.1 to P.W.75 had deposed with regard to their investments made in A1 and A2 firms. According to them they were not returned back their money despite repeated demands made by them. All the depositors were not cross examined by the accused. The evidence of the depositors corroborated with each other.
2.4 The accused denied having committed any offence when they were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. There were no witnesses or documentary evidence on their side.
2.5. The trial court found all the accused as guilty and sentenced them as follows:
| rank of theaccused | Conviction | Sentence |
| A1 & A2 | Section 420 IPC &Section 5 of TNPID | A fine of Rs.10,000/- for eachoffences and each counts (10,000 x 2 x 2 x 75 = Rs.30,00,000/-). |
The main legal point established in the judgment is the accountability of the accused under the TNPID Act for cheating investors through false promises.
The court upheld convictions for financial fraud, emphasizing the fulfillment of evidentiary standards for proving deceit by defendants.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the deception to cheat, prima facie established through unrealistic promises and issuing receipts as advance for household articles, justifies....
Conviction under the TNPID Act upheld due to proven fraudulent solicitation of deposits, despite later repayment of principal amounts.
The accused were acquitted after settling all dues to depositors, establishing that offences under the TNPID Act can be compounded post-settlement.
The court affirmed that individuals involved in facilitating loans under fraudulent circumstances can be held accountable, reflecting the principle of personal culpability in conspiracy and fraud off....
The court held that the age and health of the applicants, along with the nature of the allegations, justified granting bail despite serious charges under economic offences.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.