Back
2019 Supreme(P&H) 2888
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Ramendra Jain, J.
Vasant Raj Pandit - Appellant
Versus
State Of U.T., Chandigarh - Respondent
CRM-M-32862-2016 (O&M)
Decided On : 30-01-2019
Mr. T.S.Sangha Senior Advocate with Mr. Suneet Kumar Advocate, for the Appellant; Ms. Ashima Mor, APP for U.T. Chandigarh
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a time-barred criminal action cannot be revived by adding a new section after the limitation period. Additionally, the judgment emphasizes the importance of establishing the activities of a company within the legal framework to determine liability.
Headnote:
Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes - Challenge to Impugned Order - Sections 3 and 4 of PCMCS Act, 1978, Section 420 IPC - [3, 4, 420] - The court discussed the legality and validity of the impugned order, the definition of Money Circulation Schemes, and the addition of Section 420 IPC after the limitation period. The court referred to government letters and statements to establish that the activities of the company did not fall within the PCMCS Act. The court also highlighted the transparency and legitimacy of the business, the absence of deception or misrepresentation, and the lack of evidence for cheating and forgery, leading to the dismissal of the petition.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the legality and validity of the impugned order, which framed charges against him under sections 3 and 4 of the PCMCS Act, and Section 420 IPC, arising from an FIR registered in 2002. The petitioner argued that the addition of Section 420 IPC after the limitation period was erroneous and that the activities of the company did not fall within the PCMCS Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the time-barred criminal action could not be revived by adding Section 420 IPC after the limitation period. It also concluded that the activities of the company did not constitute a Money Circulation Scheme under the PCMCS Act. The court dismissed the petition for lack of merit.
Issues: The issues involved the legality of framing charges under sections 3 and 4 of the PCMCS Act and Section 420 IPC, the addition of Section 420 IPC after the limitation period, and the classification of the company's activities under the PCMCS Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the time-barred criminal action could not be revived by adding Section 420 IPC after the limitation period. It also established that the activities of the company did not fall within the PCMCS Act based on government letters and statements. The court emphasized the transparency and legitimacy of the business, the absence of deception or misrepresentation, and the lack of evidence for cheating and forgery.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, set aside the impugned orders, and allowed the petitions in favor of the petitioner.
JUDGMENT
Ramendra Jain, J. - By this common judgment, I shall dispose of all the following petitions bearing nos. CRM-M-31776, CRM-M-32862, CRM-M-32963, CRM-M-32971, CRM-M-32973, CRM-M-32977, CRM-M-32978, CRM-M-32980, CRM-M-32982, CRM-M-32991, CRM-M-32993, CRM-M-32994 and CRM-M-32995 of 2016 together as question of facts and law involved therein are identical in nature. However, for the sake of convenience, facts are being extracted from CRM-M-32862-2016.
2. Through this petition under section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has laid challenge to the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 7.6.2016 (Annexure P-3) of the lower revisional court, setting aside order dated 02.12.2015 (Annexure P-2) of the trial court, whereby he was discharged of charges framed against him under sections 3 and 4 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 (in short "PCMCS Act") and Section 420 IPC, arising out of FIRNo.280 dated 02.12.2002 registered under sections 3 and 4 of the PCMCS Act at Police Station Sector 26, Chandigarh, remanding the case to the trial court with the direction to decide the matter afresh, after considering various aspects of the case and evidence collected during investigation, in accordance with law; impugned order dated 6.8.2016 (Annexure P-4) of the trial court, framing charges against him under the aforementioned sections of the PCMCS Act and 420 IPC and charge-sheet dated 6.8.2016 (Annexure P-5).
3. The relevant facts necessary for disposal of this case are that on receipt of the complaint from Shri S.P. Negi, DGM (retired) RBI, FIR No.280 dated 2.12.2002 was registered against the petitioner under sections 3 and 4 of the PCMCS Act at Police Station, Sector 26, Chandigarh, averring that the petitioner was the sole proprietor of M/s Frontier Trading and a distributor of Japan Life. M/s Amway India Enterprise is carrying on business of selling its products, viz., tooth paste, wood polish etc. in Chandigarh, sponsoring a person into the plan on his obtaining an Amway business kit from the company for the purpose of starting its business. The sponsored person had to develop both customers and distributors to generate his income, which he derives from the profit earned from retail sales and commission. Thus, a sponsored member, at certain level, earns a huge and quick monthly income from the scheme of the company, thereby contravening provisions of Section 2(C) of the Banning Act. Likewise, marketing plan launched by Japan Life India, a company marketed by Frontier Trading, prescribes enrollment of minimum three business members against commission of 10% of the sale value of the product directly sold by him. With the increase in numbers of enrollment of members under the sponsored person, the percentage of commission, at a certain level, goes higher and higher, attracting more and more members/customers, desirous of making quick or easy money under the plan of the company. Thus, the said schemes were Money Circulation Schemes defined under Section 2(C), banned under Section 3 of the Banning Act.
4. During the course of investigation, it transpired that petitioner Vasant Raj Pandit through his aforesaid proprietorship firm M/s Frontier Trading enrolled 37 members and misappropriated amount of Rs.38,15,231/-. Consequently, he was arrested and released on bail.
5. The trial court, initially, vide order dated 2.12.2015 (Annexure P-2) discharged the petitioner of charges, referred to above, including section 420 IPC, framed against him. Against this order, the State preferred revision. After remand, the trial court, vide order dated 06.08.2016 (Annexure P-4), framed charges under sections 3 and 4 of the PCMCS Act and section 420 IPC against the petitioner.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assiduously argued that initially, the main FIR was registered on 2.12.2002 under Sections 3 and 4 of the PCMCS Act. Section 420 IPC was added later on with intent to revive the time barr
