Conviction under the TNPID Act upheld due to proven fraudulent solicitation of deposits, despite later repayment of principal amounts.

JUDGMENT :

M. NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

Crl.A.No.368 of 2021 filed by A4, Crl.A.No.378 of 2021 filed by A1 to A3 and Crl.A.No.386 of 2021 filed by A5. Simultaneously, the defacto complainant and victims PW1 to PW7 preferred an appeal in Crl.A.No.403 of 2021 seeking to award adequate compensation.

2.The gist of the case is that PW1/defacto complainant lodged a complaint against A1/Sri Kandiamman Finance and its partners/A2 to A5 complaining that A1 Finance Company canvassed and advertised seeking deposits to be made with the finance Company and assured 24% interest. Lured by the same, PW1 made several deposits. In her name, PW1 deposited Rs.1,00,000/- on 15.11.2000, Rs.3,50,000/- on 27.06.2001, Rs.2,00,000/- on 01.04.2002 and Rs.1,00,000/- on 01.08.2002. Further she deposited Rs.3,00,000/- on 27.06.2001 and Rs.1,50,000/- on 18.08.2003 in the name of her husband Baskarasethupathi and Rs.4,00,000/- on 27.06.2001 in the name of her daughter Divyakanakabala, in total, she deposited Rs.16,00,000/-. A2, a partner received the amount and issued seven fixed deposit receipt, at that time, the other partners, A3 to A5 along with him. Till August 2002, interest was paid on the deposits and thereafter, no payments made. The defacto complainant asked for return of the deposit amounts and the matured amount. Despite several requests, the accused failed to pay, hence the principal amount of Rs.16,00,000/- and the interest amount of Rs.8,64,000, totaling Rs.24,64,000 were cheated and not paid. The defacto complainant lodged a complaint with the respondent, who on receipt of the complaint, registered a case in Crime No.9 of 200 under the TNPID Act . Yet another depositor, Rajashanmugam on 06.11.2004 sought for the maturity amount of Rs.3,44,000 for his deposit. On registration of the FIR, it was found that PW1 to PW7 deposited amounts based on the representation and promise of 24% interest. The appellants though paid interest for few months, thereafter failed to pay. On conclusion of investigation, it was found that the appellants/accused defaulted to pay the deposit of Rs.25,30,000/- and defaulted interest payment of Rs.13,27,700/- totaling Rs.38,57,700/- to seven depositors. On conclusion of investigation, charge sheet filed against the accused for the offence under Sections 120(b), 406, 420 IPC and Section 5 of TNPID Act . During trial, PW1 to PW9 examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P16 marked on the side of the prosecution. On the side of the defence, A5 examined as DW1 and A2 examined as DW2 and marked four documents, Ex.D1 to Ex.D4. On conclusion of trial, the Trial Court finding that the appellants/accused deposited the principal amount only in the year 2021, found them guilty and sentenced A1 to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 5 of the TNPID Act and A2 to A5 to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each under Section 5 of TNPID Act , in default, to undergo one year simple imprisonment. Against which, the present appeals filed.

3.The defacto complainant and victims filed an appeal for the reason that the deposits in this case were made during the period from 15.11.2000 to 18.08.2003 and it is not fair on the part of the accused to have deposited the principal amount alone and not paid any compensation.

4.The learned counsel for A1 to A3 submitted that the admitted case of the prosecution is that the appellants collected deposit of Rs.25,30,000/- from PW1 to PW7 and defaulted the interest on such deposits to the tune of Rs.13,27,700/-. A2 deposited the entire due amount of Rs.25,30,000/- is not in dispute. A3/mother of A2 retired from the partnership on 25.02.1997 and A4, another partner retired on 25.07.1997, requisite Form A/Ex.D3 dated 16.04.2004 produced to prove that even prior to the complaint dated 04.11.2004, A3 and A4 retired from the