IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
Sriman @ V.Narayanan – Appellant
Versus
State Rep by its The Inspector of Police, EOW Police-II, Villupuram District. -Respondent
Crl.R.C.No.359 of 2021
Decided on : 21-04-2025
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 420 - Chit Funds Act, 1982 - Sections 4 and 76 - Conviction for cheating in running an unregistered chit fund - Petitioner convicted for cheating 11 subscribers to the tune of Rs.11,15,950/- - Lower Appellate Court confirmed conviction but modified sentence to run concurrently - Petitioner deposited entire amount owed to subscribers - Court upheld conviction but modified sentence to period already undergone. (Paras 1, 14, 16)
(B) Evidence - Discrepancies in witness statements - The defense argued that none of the subscribers paid directly to the petitioner, and the trial court failed to consider contradictions in witness testimonies. (Paras 4, 5)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was convicted for running an unregistered chit fund and cheating subscribers. The total amount cheated was Rs.11,15,950/-. The petitioner claimed he was falsely implicated and that discrepancies existed in witness statements regarding payments. (Paras 2, 4)
Findings of Court:
The petitioner deposited the entire amount owed to the subscribers, and the court found the period already served sufficient for justice. (Paras 13, 14)
Issues: The main issues were the validity of the conviction based on witness testimonies and the appropriateness of the sentence. (Paras 4, 14)
Ratio Decidendi: The court confirmed the conviction but modified the sentence to the time already served, emphasizing the need for justice to the subscribers. (Paras 14, 16)
Result: Conviction upheld; sentence modified to period already undergone.
ORDER
The petitioner/A1 was convicted by judgment, dated 04.02.2021 in C.C.No.23 of 2015 and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo one month Simple Imprisonment for offence under Section 420 IPC r/w Section 4 r/w 76 of Chit Funds Act, 1982. A2 was acquitted from all charges. Challenging the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Villupuram (Lower Appellate Court) in Crl.A.No.3 of 2021. The Lower Appellate Court by judgment, dated 21.04.2021 confirmed the conviction but modified the sentence to the effect that the petitioner shall undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month for offence under Section 420 IPC and the petitioner shall undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years for offence under Section 4 r/w 76 of Chit Funds Act, 1982. Both the sentences ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved over the same, the present criminal revision case is filed by the petitioner.
2.Gist of the case is that the petitioner/A1 along with one Kumar @ Govindhan/A2 were running an unregistered monthly chit fund in the name of M/s.Sriman V.Narayana Yadav Chits Private Limited, Gingee without obtaining previous sanction of the State Government. The said unregistered chit fund operates various schemes starting from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.50,00,000/-. Based on assurance and promise given by the petitioner/A1 and A2, PW1 to PW11 joined the said chit fund as subscribers and paid substantial amount towards the chit. Later, the chit amount not repaid to the subscribers and they were cheated by the petitioner and A2 to the tune of Rs.11,15,950/-. Based on the complaint (Ex.P2) of PW1, PW16/Investigating Officer, Economic Offence Wing-II registered FIR (Ex.P25) in Crime No.2 of 2014 for offence under Section 420 IPC and Section 4 r/w 76 of Chit Funds Act, 1982, visited the place of unregistered chit fund, prepared Observation Mahazar (Ex.P24) in presence of PW12 and PW13, prepared Rough Sketch (Ex.P26), recorded the statements of individual subscribers to the chit and on conclusion of investigation, filed charge sheet before the Trial Court on 23.12.2014.
3.During trial, 16 witnesses examined as PW1 to PW16 and 27 documents marked as Exs.P1 to P27. On the side of the defence, no witness examined and no document marked. On conclusion of trial, the Trial Court convicted the petitioner as stated above.
4.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Admittedly, none of the subscribers to the chit namely PW1 to PW11 paid any amount to the petitioner directly. The petitioner also not issued any receipt acknowledging receipt of any amount from the subscribers. PW3 admits he handed over the chit amount to one Elumalai, likewise PW4 admits he paid the chit amount to one Murugan. Thus, there are discrepancies in the statement of witnesses regarding to whom they paid the chit amount. He further submitted that in this case, PW1 to PW11 are the subscribers to the chit through whom Exs.P1, P4, P6, P7, P8, P10, P12, P14, P16, P18, P21 & P22 marked. PW1 to PW11 admit that they paid the amount to one Murugan, Kumar @ Govindhan/A2 and Parthiban/PW15 and no amount collected by the petitioner at any point of time. They also admit that writings and signature found in the installment card not written and signed by the petitioner. This fact not considered by the Courts below.
5.PW12, Saloon Shop Owner next to M/s.Sriman V.Narayana Yadav Chits Private Limited and PW13, a photo frame shop owner adjacent to M/s.Sriman V.Narayana Yadav Chits Private Limited, are witnesses to the Observation Mahazar (Ex.P24). PW14 is the District Registrar, Tindivanam who confirms that on 09.04.2013, there was an application from M/s.Sriman V.Narayana Yadav Chits Private Limited and no sanction granted within the prescribed period and on


The court confirmed the conviction for cheating under the IPC and Chit Funds Act but modified the sentence to the time already served, emphasizing justice for the subscribers.
Quashing petition dismissed as prima facie materials show accused's role in chit misappropriation; contentions for trial.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove fraudulent intention, criminal breach of trust, and misappropriation of funds beyond all reasonable doubt in cases involvi....
The Chit Funds Act, 1982 prevails over general laws, and allegations of cheating under IPC must demonstrate fraudulent intent from inception.
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.