The court can annul a conviction and sentence under the TNPID Act if the parties reach a compromise and the entire amount due to depositors is paid, emphasizing the compensatory nature of the Act.

JUDGMENT :

Shamim Ahmed, J.

Heard Mr.M. Rajasekhar, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant and Mr.A.Gopinath, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent and M/s.Anu Ganesan appearing for the respondents 2 to 4.

2. The instant Criminal Appeal has been filed challenging the conviction and sentence passed in Crl.A.No.548 of 2022, dated 18.05.2022 by the learned Special Judge, Special Court under TNPID Act Cases at Coimbatore. The trial court has convicted and sentenced the Appellant as tabulated hereunder;

3. Aggrieved against the conviction and sentence imposed on the Appellant, the present Criminal Appeal has been preferred.

4. The facts of the case in brief are as follows;

4.1. A total number of 28 innocent depositors have deposited their hard earned money and life's savings for over a decade from 1996 totalling to a sum of Rs.5,09,80,476/- in Sri Paavai Amman Finance and other Financial Establishments which were run and managed by the appellant/accused herein along with one Late Mr.Manickam i.e., A2 in C.C.No.13/2014 under the caption “One in All and All in One” by floating several schemes through their firms promising to pay returns at higher rates of interest.

4.2. It is further submitted that the appellant committed default in settling the depositors' amount due to their conspiracy in widespread diversion and misuse of the depositors' funds. Consequently, a criminal complaint came to be lodged against them by the 2nd respondent herein and other depositors in Crime No.15 of 2012 and the same was registered as Criminal case in C.C.No.13 of 2014 on the file of the Special Court under the TNPID Act, Coimbatore. The trial court has convicted and sentenced the appellant / A3 as stated above.

4.3. It is further the case that during the pendency of the said case, Mr.Manickam A2 therein died and consequently, charges against him stood abated on 04.10.2016. Challenging the conviction and sentence imposed on him, the appellant/A3 has preferred the present Criminal Appeal.

4.4 The appellant in the present case had settled 15 out of the 28 depositors, with a balance payable to the 13 unsettled depositors for the tune of Rs.4,65,40,736/-.

4.5. It was further submitted that when the case was posted for arguments on 31.07.2024, the appellant voluntarily came forward and undertook to settle the principal amount payable to the 13 unsettled depositors for the tune of Rs.4,65,40,763/- and sought permission of this Court to compound the offences charged against him. Thereafter, by considering the circumstances of the case and after undergoing several rounds of discussions, the depositors entered into an understanding with the Appellant herein and agreed to compound the offences against him upon receivi