Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. The registration deposit of Rs.460/- is only for one calendar year. The IRs have to renew their registrations annually.

10. Accused had been promoting the scheme by claiming that the products have numismatic value and are of limited edition. They deliberately suppressed the fact of their claim of numismatic AVRB,J value and paid customs duty only for the value of precious metals they contain. They evaded paying tax. The Commissioner of Customs, Air Cargo Complex, Meenambakkam, Chennai is dealing with non-payment of tax. The accused for the purpose of making financial transactions, maintained accounts in several Banks (26 branches). Believing the inducements made by the accused, 10,616 people joined as IRs in the scheme and each member deposited a sum of Rs.460/- and on further deposit they availed companies products ranging from Rs.25,300/- to Rs.51,600/- which are claimed to be unique and have antique value.

21. Smt. Y.L. Siva Kalpana Reddy, learned Standing Counsel- cum-Special Public Prosecutor for CID, appearing for the 4 (2019) 17 SCC 193 5 (2011) 3 SCC 351 6 (2015) 1 SCC 103 7 (1994) 4 SCC 142 8 1995 (2) MWN (Cr.) AVRB,J respondent-State, would contend that the allegations of the prosecution would clearly attract the essential ingredients of offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC and further Section 5 of the APPDFE Act. She would submit that the accused lured the members from the beginning with a dishonest intention so as to induce them to become Independent Representatives by subscribing a sum of Rs.460/-. The functioning of the scheme has been narrated clearly in the charge sheet. The core allegations against the present petitioners are that the accused canvassed that they have certain products such as gold coin 6 grams + silver 30z medallion. Apart from it, they also canvassed that they have certain other products and made the members to believe that the products they have numismatic and antique value especially the gold coin 6 grams and silver 30z medallion would worth about Rs.32,200/-. They collected the amounts from the members accordingly. They have delivered products as medallion packs consisting of gold coin weighing 6 grams and silver coin of 1 oz of silver coin which could fetch only Rs.10,838/- in the open market. On verification, the members learnt that the medallion packs have no numismatic or antique value. So, the members lost the differential amount. She would further contend that the allegations of the prosecution would establish the definitions of the AVRB,J „deposit' and „financial establishment' as defined under Section 2(b) and 2(c) of the APPDFE Act. The amounts that were paid by the members need not carry any interest. The return can be in any kind. Here, the members did not receive any numismatic or antique value to the products and medallion packs and they were delivered with normal packs which could only fetch Rs.10,000/- and odd. So, the difference of the amount would be treated as return in any kind as laid in Section 2(b) of the APPDFE Act. She would further submit that the allegations would attract Section 5 of the APPDFE Act. She would rely upon a decision of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Dr. Nallapareddy Sridhar Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others9 to contend that in the said case there were charges under Sections 406 as well as 420 IPC and the act of the trial Court in framing such charges was also upheld by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court. The basis for the charge would be the charge sheet, statement of the witnesses enclosed thereto and the relevant material enclosed. The so called subsequent payments, claimed to be made by the accused just before framing of charges and which were said to be brought to the notice of the then learned Special Judge, should not have been the basis for framing the charge. It is clearly held even in the decision cited by learned 9 (2020) 12 SCC 467 AVRB,J Counsel for the petitioners in Minakshi Bala (7th supra). She would submit that almost 95 witnesses were examined before the trial Court after framing of charges and the petitioners have participated in the trial and all of a sudden, they filed this present Criminal Revision Case, which is liable to be dismissed.

AVRB,J

26. A close perusal of the allegations in the charge sheet shows that apart from the allegations regarding deposit of Rs.460/- by a member i.e., IR and their commission etc., the important allegation is that the accused canvassed that they have different products as mentioned in Para No.5 hereinabove. So, the worth of gold coin 6 grams and silver 30z medallion would cost about Rs.32,200/-. The case of the prosecution is that in the open market the cost of this medallion is fetching only Rs.10,838/- and the remaining amount Rs.21,162/- goes to the company. Further, the allegation of the prosecution is that the accused made the members to believe that the above gold coin 6 grams, silver 30z medallion and other products have numismatic and antique value, which would fetch several lakhs in future. Further allegation is that they deliberately suppressed the fact that their claim of numismatic or antique value was not there. It is also the allegation that accused delivered its products as above to the members through Blue Dart Courier and most of the delivered products are medallion packs consisting of silver and gold coins weighing each 6 grams of gold coin and silver 30z medallion at Rs.10,838/- in the open market. On verification, it came to light that the medallion has no numismatic or antique value.

AVRB,J

27. It is to be noticed that though it is the claim of the revision petitioners that for the amounts paid by the members, they have issued Purchase Certificates or Vouchers but this Court is of the considered view that in common parlance one may use the words that they made a fixed deposit or purchased a fixed deposit. So, simply because accused are alleged to have issued a purchase voucher, it would not alter the nature of the transaction. Here, according to Section 2(b) of the APPDFE Act, deposit means the deposit of a sum of money either in lump sum or installments made with a financial establishment for a fixed period for interest or return in any kind. Here, the return in any kind would cover the promise made by the accused that their products have numismatic or antique value which would fetch in future lakhs of rupees. So, the kind of return which can be expected in the light of the allegations made by the prosecution would be a return of gold coin + silver coin which should have numismatic or antique value. The numismatic or antique value of the gold coins means that they hold more value than the spot or current market price of the gold due to rarity, age and other factors. The case of the prosecution is that the medallion packs delivered by the accused have no numismatic or antique value. The case of the prosecution can be brought under the purview of return in any kind. It is not the case AVRB,J of the accused that the payments made by the members would be non-refundable forever. According to the case of the prosecution, the initial deposit of Rs.460/- towards membership would be non- refundable but not the amounts paid the members towards the value of the products of the accused. Apart from this, there is no dispute that A-1 company is not a corporation or a co-operative society owned or controlled by the State or Central Government or a banking company. Undoubtedly, the company of A-1 can be taken as a financial establishment.