9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 1478X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he case on 19.03.2012 and Nagarajan (A1) was only considered as a suspect. No formal accusation was laid against him as the enquiry had only then begun. Applicability of Section 420 IPC, in the absence of any person complaining that he was cheated - HELD THAT:- On a scrutiny of the facts alleged in the police case, it is seen that this group appears to have printed the lottery tickets of other States and sold to public in Tamil Nadu. Are not the ingredients of cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property inbuilt in this allegation? True, that those who had purchased the lottery tickets from this group have not been identified by the police. But, that cannot be a reason to hold that there is no material in the police case to prosecute the offenders under Section 420 IPC. The impugned complaint is bereft of prima facie materials for quashing the same - this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s explaining the source of Rs. 7,20,05,000/-. A3 & A5 submitted a sale agreement on a stamp paper dated 02.03.2012 to show as if that the sum of Rs. 7,20,05,000/- was advance received for the sale of an immovable property. When this sale agreement was submitted to the police, it was noticed by the investigating officer that the stamp paper for the sale agreement was itself issued by the Treasury only on 09.03.2012 and, therefore, the sale agreement dated 02.03.2012 was a fake one. Therefore, Adambakkam Police altered the case in Crime No. 304 of 2012 by adding Sections 467, 468 and 471 of IPC to the FIR along with the existing provisions. It appears that the FIR in Crime No.304 of 2012 was quashed by this court by order dated 15.10.2014 in Crl.O.P. Nos. 13106 and 14971 of 2013 on the ground that the FIR did not disclose the commission of any offence. Challenging the same, the State went on appeal to the Supreme Court and in Crl.A. Nos. 423 - 424 of 2018 by order dated 28.03.2018, the Supreme Court set aside the order of this court quashing the FIR and permitted the State Police to proceed with the investigation in Crime No. 304 of 2012. In the mean while, the Enforcement Directorat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he contended that there is absolutely no material to show that the offence under Section 420 IPC has been committed for maintaining the present complaint against the petitioners under PMLA. He submitted that no person has ever come forward to state that he was cheated by the accused. He also submitted that the FIR was registered in the year 2012 and till date, the same has not fruitioned into a final report by the police and, therefore, the present prosecution under the PMLA is vexatious. 11. We are unable to subscribe to the above submission because, the statement of Nagarajan which forms the basis of the FIR in Crime No. 304 of 2012 itself says that they had printed the lottery tickets of other States and had sold it to people in Tamil Nadu where there is a ban for the sale of lotteries which itself shows that the ingredients of cheating is inbuilt in the statement. Of course, such a statement having been made to a police officer may be hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act, but nevertheless, that can trigger a police investigation as well an investigation by the Enforcement Directorate under the PMLA. 12. Coming to the statement of Nagarajan that was given to the officials of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such person (noticee) is revealed, the authorised officials can certainly proceed against him for his acts of commission or omission. In such a situation, at the stage of issue of summons, the person cannot claim protection under Article 20(3) of the Constitution. However, if his/her statement is recorded after a formal arrest by the ED official, the consequences of Article 20(3) or Section 25 of the Evidence Act may come into play to urge that the same being in the nature of confession, shall not be proved against him. Further, it would not preclude the prosecution from proceeding against such a person including for consequences under Section 63 of the 2002 Act on the basis of other tangible material to indicate the falsity of his claim. That would be a matter of rule of evidence." 13. We carefully considered the aforesaid submissions. 14. At the outset, it may be relevant to state that the an officer of the Enforcement Directorate is not a police officer within the meaning of Section 25 of The Evidence Act. As observed by the Supreme Court in a catena of decisions including Ramesh Chandra Mehta vs State of West Bengal (AIR 1970 SC 940), a person becomes an accused in an econom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of evidence appended to the complaint and submitted that the Enforcement Directorate has cited only 3 persons as prosecution witnesses out of whom 2 are the officers of the Enforcement Directorate and, therefore, it would be impossible for them to prove the facts alleged in the complaint based on the testimony of 3 witnesses. 16. In our opinion, the impugned complaint cannot be quashed on this ground as it is always open to the trial court to exercise its powers under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. to examine witnesses, who have not been cited in memo of evidence, in the interest of justice. 17. Coming to the contention of Mr. N.R. Elango that in the absence of any person complaining that he was cheated, Section 420 IPC cannot stand attracted, at the first blush, this submission appeared impressive. But, on a scrutiny of the facts alleged in the police case, it is seen that this group appears to have printed the lottery tickets of other States and sold to public in Tamil Nadu. Are not the ingredients of cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property inbuilt in this allegation? True, that those who had purchased the lottery tickets from this group have not been identified by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
