Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

10.Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) refuted the contentions.

http://www.judis.nic.in

11.This Court gave its anxious consideration to the rival submissions.

12.Selvanayagi (P.W.1), in her examination-in-chief, has stated that she is a house-wife; Gunasundari (A2) is the wife of Purushothaman (A1) and they live in the same street and hence, she knows them well; the accused were conducting chit from 1996 onwards; when she (P.W.1) begot a girl child, she wanted to save some money, knowing which, the accused approached her and asked her to join the chit scheme; accordingly, she joined two chit schemes, each for Rs.30,000/- and another chit scheme for Rs.22,500/-; towards the two chit schemes for Rs.30,000/- each, she paid Rs.2,000/- per month per chit and towards the chit scheme of Rs.22,500/-, she paid Rs.1,500/- per month; the chit schemes were for 15 months; after the scheme period of 15 months, when she approached the accused, they did not pay any money and convinced her that her money is safe with them and that will be given to her, when the need arises; believing that, she did not press them further; she joined some more chit schemes, viz. chit scheme for Rs.1,00,000/-, two chit schemes for Rs.50,000/- each, chit scheme for Rs.40,000/- and two chit schemes for Rs.45,000/- each and paid the monthly dues regularly; after the time period of those schemes, when she approached the accused, they told her that her money is safe with them and they will give it at the time of her daughter's (daugher of P.W.1) wedding; when she found that the accused were dodging, she thought that she could get back her money by bidding in the auction and hence, she participated, and bid Rs.1,00,000/- after deducting Rs.29,000/- and http://www.judis.nic.in also bid a sum of Rs.50,000/- after deducting Rs.3,000/-; the accused did not pay even the bid amount and gave only Rs.30,000/- on 01.04.1996, for which, Gunasundari (A2) gave a receipt (Ex.P1); on 01.08.1996 when she approached Gunasundari (A2) for the money, she (A2) issued a receipt (Ex.P2); similarly, for the payments made subsequently, Gunasundari (A2) issued another receipt (Ex.P3) and also gave an unsigned statement of account (Ex.P4); ultimately, when Gunasundari (A2) did not make any payment, she (P.W.1) lodged the complaint (Ex.P6). In the cross-examination, she has admitted that her husband worked as conductor in the State Transport Corporation and retired from service. She has also admitted that she has no independent means of income and she has no documentary evidence to show that she had joined the chit, run by the accused. However, she has stated in the cross-examination that when she demanded the money, Gunasundari (A2) issued Exs.P1 to P4, which are accounts of the transactions between them. She has also admitted that Exs.P1 to P4 do not contain her (P.W.1) name. She has further admitted that she had earlier given a complaint to the police and an enquiry was conducted. It was suggested to her that the accused had borrowed Rs.4,03,000/- from her husband, for which, promissory notes were executed, which suggestion she denied. Ultimately, it was suggested to her that the accused did not run any chit transaction and they had only borrowed money from her husband, which suggestion also she denied. http://www.judis.nic.in