Madras High Court
R.Ravi vs Mr.K.Anbarasan on 27 October, 2017
Author: M.Dhandapani
Bench: M.Dhandapani
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 27.10.2017
Coram
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
Crl.O.P.(MD).Nos. 15040 of 2010 to 15047 of 2010
and
Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos.1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1,1,
2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2 of 2010 in each Criminal Original
Petitions respectively
Petitioners in Crl.O.P(MD)No.15040 of 2010:
1.R.Ravi
2.P.Pushpam
3.S.Ranjitham
4.L.Arulmozhi ...Petitioners/Accused
Petitioners in Crl.O.P(MD)No.15041 of 2010:
1.P.Vijayakalyani
2.R.Ravi
3.S.Ranjitham
4.S.Punithavathy
5.P.Pushpam
...Petitioners/Accused
Petitioners in Crl.O.P(MD)No.15042 of 2010:
1.P.Manimaran
2.R.Ravi
3.P.Pushpam
4.M.Senthilvel
5.M.Sekar ...Petitioners/Accused
Petitioners in Crl.O.P(MD)No.15043 of 2010:
1.M.Kavitha
2.R.Ravi
3.S.Vijayalakshmi
4.M.Senthilvel ...Petitioners/Accused
Petitioners in Crl.O.P(MD)No.15044 of 2010:
1.P.Vijayakalyani
2.R.Ravi
3.S.Vijayalakshmi
4.M.Senthilvel ...Petitioners/Accused
Petitioners in Crl.O.P(MD)No.15045 of 2010:
1.M.Kavitha
2.R.Ravi
3.P.Pushpam
4.K.Shanthi
5.M.Sekar
...Petitioners/Accused
Petitioners in Crl.O.P(MD)No.15046 of 2010:
1.P.Manimaran
2.S.Vijayalakshmi
4.K.Shanthi ...Petitioners/Accused
Petitioners in Crl.O.P(MD)No.15047 of 2010:
1.P.Manimaran
2.R.Ravi
3.P.Pushpam
4.S.Ranjitham
5.M.Sekar
...Petitioners/Accused
Vs.
1.State represented by
Inspector of Police,
Economic Offence Wing -II,
Karur.
Crime No.4 of 2008
2.V.Sethuraman ...Respondents in all
Crl.O.Ps.
COMMON PRAYER: These Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482
of Cr.P.C., to call for the records relating to C.C.Nos. 11, 17, 18, 19, 16,
15, 14 & 12 of 2010, on the file of the Learned Special Judge under TNPID
Act, Madurai and quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.C.Ramesh
For 1st Respondent : Mr.K.Anbarasan
(In all Crl. O.Ps.) Govt.Advocate.(Crl.Side)
:COMMON ORDER
These petitions have been filed to quash the case in C.C.Nos. 11, 17, 18, 19, 16, 15, 14 and 12 of 2010, on the file of the learned Special Judge under TNPID Act cases, Madurai.
2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State and perused the records.
3.These petitioners are the accused in Crime No.4 of 2008 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 of I.P.C r/w Section 5 of TNPID Act. The petitioners started Pughalzi Chits and collected huge money from the general public for higher interest. The cheated victims approached the first respondent and thereby the first respondent registered a case in Crime No.4 of 2008 for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420 of I.P.C r/w Section 5 of TNPID Act.
4.The petitioners filed these Criminal Original Petitions challenging Crime No.4 of 2008 registered under TNPID Act solely on the ground that the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court declared the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors Act, 1999 as ultra vires. Hence, the State of Tamil Nadu enacted the TNPID Act is bad in law.
5.However, the provisions of the said Act came to be challenged before this Court, a Full Bench of this Court in Ms.S.Bagavathy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu rep. by the Secretary to Government Law Department and another reported in 2007 (2)MLJ 526 has upheld the provisions in TNPID Act the relevant portion is as follows:
?149.1.To sum up a. the filed of legislation, viz., Tamil Nadu Act, is traceable to Entries 1 and 32 of list it, besides failing under Entries 1, 7 and 8 in the Concurrent List, which as already observed needs no deliberation; b. the impugned Tamil Nadu Act does not fall within the legislative field of the Union list (List I); and c. though there is trenching, the same is only incidental, which is permissible in law.?
6.Against which, the matter was taken to the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court while upholding the constitutional validity of the said Act vide judgment in K.K.Baskaran Vs. State reported in 2011 (3) SCC 793 in paragraphs 24, 25, 26 and 30 has observed as follows:
?24. The Tamil Nadu Act was enacted to find out a solution for the problem of the depositors who were deceived on a large scale by the fraudulent activities of certain financial establishments. There was a disastrous consequence both in the economic as well as social life of such depositors who were exploited by false promise of high return of interest. These financial institutions/establishments did not come either under the Reserve Bank of India Act or the Banking Regulation Act, and hence they escaped form public control. By the impugned Act the State not only proposed to attach the properties of such fraudulent establishments and the mala fide transferees, but also provided for the sale of such properties and for distribution of the sale proceeds amongst the innocent depositors. Hence, in our opinion, the doctrine of occupied field or repugnancy, has no application in the present case.
25.The object of the Tamil Nadu Act was to give a speedy remedy to the innocent depositors who were vulnerable to the temptation of earning high rates of interest and were ictimised by the financial establishments fraudulently. As regards Section 58-A of the Companies Act, this prescribes the conditions under which the deposits may be invited or accepted by the companies. On the other hand, the aim and object of the Tamil Nadu Act is totally different.
26.The Tamil Nadu Act was enacted to ameliorate the conditions of thousands of depositors who had fallen into the clutches of fraudulent financial establishments who had raised hopes of high rate of interest and thus duped the depositors. Thus the Tamil Nadu Act is not focused on the transaction of banking or the acceptance of deposit, but is focused on remedying the situation of the depositors who were deceived by the fraudulent financial establishments. The impugned Tamil Nadu Act was intended to deal with neither the banks which do the business or banking and are governed by the Reserved Bank of India Act and the Banking Regulation Act, nor the non-
banking financial companies enacted under the Companies Act, 1956.
30.The Court should interpret the constitutional provisions against the social setting of the country and not in the abstract. The Court must take into consideration the economic realities and aspirations of the people and must further the social interest which is the purpose of the legislation, as held by Holmes, Brandeis and Frankfurter, JJ. Of the US Supreme Court in a series of decisions. Hence the courts cannot function in a vacuum. It is for this reason that courts presume in favour of constitutionality of the statute because there is always a presumption that the legislature understands and correctly appreciates the needs of its own people, vide Govt. of A.P v. P.Laxmi Devi.?
The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held as follows:-
?39.We fail to see how there is any violation of Article 14, 19(1) (g) or 21 of the Constitution. The Act is a salutary measure to remedy a great social eil. A systematic conspiracy was effected by certain fraudulent financial establishments which not only committed fraud on the depositor, but also siphoned off or diverted the depositor's funds mala fide. We are of the opinion that the act of the financiers in exploiting the depositors is a notorious abuse of faith of the depositors who innocently deposited their money with the former for higher rate of interest. These depositors were often given a small pass book as a token of acknowledgment of their deposit, which they considered as a passport of their children for higher education or wedding of their daughters or as a policy of medical insurance in the case of most of the aged depositors, but in reality in all cases it was n unsecured promise executed on a waste paper. The senior citizens above 80 years, senior citizens between 60 and 80 years, widows, handicapped, driven out by wards, retired government servants and pensioners, and persons living below the poverty line constituted the bulk of the depositors. Without the aid of the impugned Act, it would have been impossible to recover their deposits and interest thereon.
40. The conventional legal proceedings incurring huge expenses of court fees, advocates' fees, apart from other inconveniences involved and the long delay in disposal of cases due to docket explosion in Courts, would not have made it possible for the depositors to recover their money, leave alone the interest thereon. Hence, in our opinion the impugned Act has rightly been enacted to enable the depositors to recover their money speedily by taking strong steps in this connection.
41.The State being the custodian of the welfare of the citizens as parens patriae cannot be a silent spectator without finding a solution for this malady. The financial swindlers, who are nothing but cheats and charlatans having no social responsibility, but only a lust for easy money by making false promise of attractive returns for the gullible investors, had to be dealt with strongly.
42. The small amounts collected from a substantial number of individual depositors culminated into huge amounts of money. These collections were diverted in the name of third parties and finally one day the fraudulent financiers closed their financial establishments leaving the innocent depositors in the lurch.?
7.Following the above said decisions, I am not inclined to quash the proceeding in C.C.Nos.11, 17, 18, 19, 16, 15, 14 and 12 of 2010.
Accordingly, these Criminal Original Petitions are dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. The petitioners are directed to appear before the trial Court as and when their presence are required. Further, the learned Special Judge under TNPID Act, Madurai, is directed to dispose of the cases in C.C.Nos.11, 17, 18, 19, 16, 15, 14 and 12 of 2010 as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
To
1.Inspector of Police, Economic Offence Wing -V, Karur.
2.The Special Judge under TNPID Act, Madurai
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
.