LexKURIACHAN CHACKO & ORS. versus STATE OF KERALA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
,.. · [2008] 10 S.C.R 609 KURIACHAN CHACKO & ORS. V. STATE OF KERALA (Criminal Appeal No. 1044 of 2008) JULY 10,2008 [C.K. THAKKER AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.] Prize Chits & Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978: ss.2,3,4 and 5/Penal Code, 1860: ss.415 and 4201 Re- A B serve Bank of India Act, 1934; ss.45/(bb), 45S and 58B: c Money Circulation Scheme - Accused floating a scheme for selling of lotteries and magazines by collecting money in advance - Police registering a case against accused treating the scheme as Money Circulation Scheme violating provisions under 1978 Act, 1934 Act and for committing offences punish- D able under s. 420 !PC - Trial Court framed charge against ac- cused for offences punishable under s. 2(c) and 3 of 1978 Act and under s. 420 !PC - It however discharged the accused for offences punishable under s.2(e) of 1978 Act as also under s. 451 (bb), 455 and 58Bof1934 Act and under s. 420 /PC- and E, under s.420 !PC- Revision Petitions by the state as well as by accused.- Dismissed by High Court - Correctness of- Held: Making of quick money and enrolment of members into the Scheme, both ingredients for applicability of S.2( c) of 1978 Act . are present - Courts below found that there is ~n element or·. ·F'"•· cheating inasmuch as accused inducing common public by way of representation to part with money on the lure of doubling the amount - Prima facie, the Courts were satisfied that but for the representation and benefits sought to be given under the Scheme, the victims/public would not have acted on such rep- G resentation - Thus, a case of committing offence under s.415 !PC has been made out- Hence, the Courts below. were right in not interfering with the prosecution at the stage of the framing of charge - No reason found to interfere with the order. 609 H 610 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 10 S.C.R. A Accused-appellants are partners in a firm engaged in the business of sale of l'Otteries'and magazines. They floated a scheme Jor selling of lotteries and magazines . In terms of the scheme, the Investors by investing in the ·.· scheme, would be able to double .their. investment in a B ·· short period of time. The scheme appeared to be very at- tractive and became popular. Howev,er1 the Police reg is~ tered a ·c·ase~·against the firm for committing an offence· punishabl~ 4nder.s.420, IPC; for violation of the provision of the Pri~e, Chits and money Circulati<>ri .Scheme (Ban- c . t'ling) Act~ 1978 and also the Reserve Bank of India, Act, 1934: Tria't, Court: framed charge. against a~Gused for com~ mitting offenc;:es punishable under: s:420 tlw. ~;34JPC and und~f/ss.4· ·a··rid ·5 r/w ss.2(c) and 3 .of 1978 Act but . :.:: ctischarsed them and also u11der ss.451(bb), 45S and 588 . o: of.)9~~ [\ct as >a.lso,.un,der ~;2(~) _o! 1978 f-pt.· Both_ the ·ac- . · · cused anct the State -~iled. a rev1s1on petition against the . order of the. trial Court.' Dismissing the .revision petitions, . the High . Court held that the friai . Court was righUn dis:. Charging the accuse~tfor offences punishable under Sec'." . E .·.Jions 4·and Sread·wiUr Sec~fons 2(e).ahq.3 of the.Act and··· . also ~under "the ~eserv:~ Bank of. lhdia Act; .1934; that·· the. trial Cc:n.1rt\~at> rig~t'irl'frarnii;ig·.the charge.againstthe ac~ cuse.cffor com'mitting:offE!nces punishabfe under· Sections · 4 arid !(rea<;I witt($ectiot)'$>·~(c).:artd 3. of 1.978:Ac.farid also undefs·ection 420 te'ad: 0wltff·s·ectfon 34, IPC. Hence, 'the F"''~pfe'seiltap~e.als filed by th'e.ac.cused.. ·: · .··. · · , ·· · · , •• ···'. .•• •' -·-- .. l' ·.-· ... ·:.· ., .. .,. :,_ .. -: ,- .~:·Accused•appellants contended that the trial Court· ··:····. ·and:'.theHigh'Courtwere right in discharging the accw~ed · ::: .for ,committing· certain offer:ices?pl.Jnisha:ble unde·r• the . . ci :>~riz~ Chits ~nd M~ney Circ~ulation Scheme.(B~nning) Act, .· · .... 1978 and also under the Rese.rve Bank of India Act, 1934; that· since the Stat~ .has not' preferred appeal :a~fainstthe said order,the .. decision has become.finaf;: thatb.othJhe CourtS below were llitong in not 'di~cti~rgingJh~ c:ICcused for committing offences punishable underSections 4 and · .. H ...... . ,,.. . r ~- ) KURIACHAN CHACKO & ORS. v. STATE OF 611 KERA LA ... > ... -t 5 read with Sections 2(c) and 3 of the Act as also for an A offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34, IPC; that the scheme flo
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.