9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978. 2. Applicability of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934. 3. Applicability of Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Applicability of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978: The primary question was whether the "LIS Deepasthambham Scheme" fell under the definition of a "money circulation scheme" as per Section 2(c) of the Act. The scheme involved collecting Rs. 625 from participants, promising them lottery tickets and a magazine subscription, with an assurance of doubling their investment based on the enrolment of additional members. The Court referred to the definition of "money circulation scheme" in Section 2(c) and previous judgments, particularly *State of West Bengal v. Swapan Kumar Guha*, to interpret its scope. The Court noted that the scheme in question had both the essential elements: (i) making quick or easy money, and (ii) dependency on the enrolment of additional members. The scheme promised double the investment once 14 more members were enrolled, satisfying the requirement of an event or contingency relative to the enrolment of members. The Court rejected the argument that the scheme did not attract Section 2(c) because there was no obligation on the part of the unit holder to enlist more members. It clarified that the law does not require the enrolment to be done by the members themselves; it suffices if the payment is dependent on the enrolment of more persons into the scheme. The Court upheld the trial court's decision to frame charges under Sections 4 and 5 read with Sections 2(c) and 3 of the Act, finding that a prima facie case was made out. 2. Applicability of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934: The trial court had discharged the accused for offences under Sections 45I(bb), 45S, and 58B of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934. The High Court agreed with this decision, noting that the learned Additional Advocate General/Special Public Prosecutor conceded that the facts of the case did not attract these provisions. The Supreme Court did not find any reason to interfere with this part of the High Court's decision, as the State had not preferred an appeal against it, making the decision final. 3. Applicability of Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Section 420 IPC deals with cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. The Court emphasized the elements of cheating as defined in Section 415 IPC, which include deception, fraudulent or dishonest inducement, and resultant harm or damage. The Court found that the scheme involved false representations by the promoters, who knew that the promises of doubling the investment were unworkable and impracticable. The promoters induced the public to part with money based on these false promises, satisfying the elements of cheating. The trial court and the High Court had both found that a prima facie case of cheating was made out. The Supreme Court agreed, stating that the promoters' actions prima facie constituted an offence under Section 420 read with Section 34 IPC. Conclusion: The Supreme Court upheld the framing of charges against the accused under Sections 4 and 5 read with Sections 2(c) and 3 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978, and under Section 420 read with Section 34 IPC. The Court dismissed the appeals, emphasizing that the observations made were limited to the framing of charges and did not reflect on the merits of the case. The Court clarified that the trial would proceed on its merits without being influenced by these observations.
|
