The court upheld convictions for financial fraud, emphasizing the fulfillment of evidentiary standards for proving deceit by defendants.

COMMON JUDGMENT

These Criminal Appeals have been preferred as against the Judgment dated 08.12.2020 passed in C.C.No.6 of 2013 on the file of the Special Judge, Special Court under TNPID Act, Coimbatore, thereby convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B)

and 420 of IPC and Section 5 of the TNPID Act 1997 (62 counts).

2. The case of the prosecution is that M/s.Nandhu Systems and Softwares, functioning at Door No.20/13, First Floor, M.V.Complex, Nasiyanur, Perundurai Taluk, Erode District, was a registered Company with the Registrar of Companies. The first accused is the Company. Teh second and third accused were the Managing Partners of the financial establishment, looking after the day to day administrative and financial affairs of the Company/A1. All the accused canvassed for deposits and received deposits and also entered into agreement deeds on behalf of the first accused during the period from 01.04.2011 to 06.11.2012 and thereby collected huge amount from the depositors. The accused also advertised about their computer job work scheme, canvassed and collected a deposit amount of Rs.1,00,000/- per unit by giving false a promise that they would provide 1000 forms with data per month to the depositors for a period of three years for filling up the said data in the forms using computers and that they would pay Rs.13,000/- per month for three years as monthly salary.

3. While being so, the accused failed to pay the matured deposit amounts to the tune of Rs.82,27,250/- to 39 depositors. Therefore, based on the complaint, the respondent registered an FIR for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B) and 420 of IPC and Section 5 of the TNPID Act 1997. After completion of the investigation, the respondent filed a final report and the same has been taken cognizance by the Trial Court in C.C.No.6 of 2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B) and 420 of IPC and Section 5 of TNPID Act 1997 (62 counts).

4. In order to bring home the charges against the accused, the prosecution had examined P.W.1 to P.W.54 and marked Exs. P1 to P140. On the side of the accused, no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked. However, the accused marked Exs.D1 to D4.

5. On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court found that accused guilty of the offences punishable under Sections

120(B) and 420 of IPC and Section 5 of TNPID Act 1997 and sentenced them as follows :

“For the offence under Section 120(B) of IPC, the accused were sentenced to undergo two years simple imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.15,000/- for each counts (Rs.15,000 X 39 counts X 2 accused - Rs.11,70,000/- in default of payment of fine to undergo further one year simple imprisonment. For the offence under Section 420 of IPC, the accused were sentenced to undergo three years simple imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.15,000/- for each counts (Rs.15,000 X 39 counts X 2 accused – Rs.11,70,000/-) in default of payment of fine to undergo further one year simple imprisonment. For the offence under section 5 of the TNPID Act, 1997, the accused were sentenced to undergo ten years simple imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.15,000/- (Rs.15,000 X 39 X 2 accused – Rs.11,70,000/-) in default of payment of fine to undergo further one year simple imprisonment.

Thus, the total fine amount imposed is Rs.46,80,000/-.”

6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the Trial Court, without properly analysing the evidence and records, mechanically convicted the appellants. Even according to the prosecution, the accused had collected a sum of Rs.82,27,250/- out of which they have already repaid Rs.31,24,750/-. Therefore, th