Holding

The scheme fulfills both criteria of Section 2(c) and the false promise of double returns constitutes cheating, so the charge under Sections 4,5 of the Act and Section 420 IPC is justified.

Summary

The appellants, partners of a firm selling lotteries and magazines, floated a scheme promising investors a double return after the enrolment of 14 additional members. The police charged them under the Prize Chits & Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978 (sections 2(c), 3, 4, 5), the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 and IPC sections 420 read with 34. The trial court framed charges under these provisions but discharged the accused for certain sections; the High Court upheld that order. The appellants contended that the scheme was not a "money circulation scheme" and that no cheating occurred. The Supreme Court held that the scheme satisfied both ingredients of Section 2(c) – making quick money and dependence on enrolment of members – and that the false promise of double returns amounted to cheating under Section 415 IPC, justifying the charge under Section 420 IPC. Consequently, the courts below were correct in framing the charge and the appeals were dismissed.

Issues considered

The scheme's applicability to the definition of 'money circulation scheme' under Section 2(c) of the Prize Chits & Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978.
Whether the representation of double returns constitutes cheating under Section 415 IPC, thereby invoking Section 420 IPC.
Whether the trial court erred in discharging the accused for offences under Sections 4 and 5 read with Section 2(e) of the Act and under the RBI Act.
Whether the High Court erred in upholding the framing of charges.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 34, s. 415, s. 420
Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934s. 45(bb), s. 45S, s. 58B

Subjects

Money circulation schemePrize Chits ActCheatingIPC 420Pyramid schemeMulti-level marketingFraudCharge framing

Judgment

· [2008] 10 S.C.R 609

KURIACHAN CHACKO & ORS. A
V.
STATE OF KERALA
(Criminal Appeal No. 1044 of 2008)
JULY 10,2008
B
[C.K. THAKKER AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.]

Prize Chits & Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act,
1978: ss.2,3,4 and 5/Penal Code, 1860: ss.415 and 4201 Re-
serve Bank of India Act, 1934; ss.45/(bb), 45S and 58B: c
Money Circulation Scheme - Accused floating a scheme
for selling of lotteries and magazines by collecting money in
advance - Police registering a case against accused treating
the scheme as Money Circulation Scheme violating provisions
under 1978 Act, 1934 Act and for committing offences punish- D
able under s. 420 !PC - Trial Court framed charge against ac-
cused for offences punishable under s. 2(c) and 3 of 1978 Act
and under s. 420 !PC - It however discharged the accused for
offences punishable under s.2(e) of 1978 Act as also under s.
451 (bb), 455 and 58Bof1934 Act and under s. 420 /PC- and E,
,.. under s.420 !PC- Revision Petitions by the state as well as by
accused.- Dismissed by High Court - Correctness of- Held:
Making of quick money and enrolment of members into the
Scheme, both ingredients for applicability of S.2( c) of 1978 Act
. are present - Courts below found that there is ~n element or·. ·F'"•·
cheating inasmuch as accused inducing common public by
way of representation to part with money on the lure of doubling
the amount - Prima facie, the Courts were satisfied that but for
the representation and benefits sought to be given under the
Scheme, the victims/public would not have acted on such rep- G
resentation - Thus, a case of committing offence under s.415
!PC has been made out- Hence, the Courts below. were right in
not interfering with the prosecution at the stage of the framing of
charge - No reason found to interfere with the order.
609 H
610 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 10 S.C.R.

A Accused-appellants are partners in a firm engaged
in the business of sale of l'Otteries'and magazines. They
floated a scheme Jor selling of lotteries and magazines .
In terms of the scheme, the Investors by investing in the
·.· scheme, would be able to double .their. investment in a r
B · short period of time. The scheme appeared to be very at-
tractive and became popular. Howev,er1 the Police reg is~
tered a ·c·ase~·against the firm for committing an offence·
punishabl~ 4nder.s.420, IPC; for violation of the provision
of the Pri~e, Chits and money Circulati<>ri .Scheme (Ban-
c . t'ling) Act~ 1978 and also the Reserve Bank of India, Act,
1934: Tria't, Court: framed charge. against a~Gused for com~
mitting offenc;:es punishable under: s:420 tlw. ~;34JPC and
und~f/ss.4· ·a··rid ·5 r/w ss.2(c) and 3 .of 1978 Act but
. :.:: ctischarsed them and also u11der ss.451(bb), 45S and 588
. o: of.)9~~ [\ct as >a.lso,.un,der ~;2(~) 1978 Both_ the ·ac- _o! f-pt.· ~-

. · · cused anct the State -~iled. a rev1s1on petition against the
. order of the. trial Court.' Dismissing the .revision petitions, .
the High .Court held that the friai .Court was righUn dis:.
Charging the accuse~tfor offences punishable under Sec'." .
E .·.Jions 4·and Sread·wiUr Sec~fons 2(e).ahq.3 of the.Act and···
.also ~under "the ~eserv:~ Bank of. lhdia Act; .1934; that·· the. )
trial Cc:n.1rt\~at> rig~t'irl'frarnii;ig·.the charge.againstthe ac~
cuse.cffor com'mitting:offE!nces punishabfe under· Sections ·
4 arid !(rea<;I witt($ectiot)'$>·~(c).:artd 3. of 1.978:Ac.farid also
undefs·ection 420 te'ad: 0wltff·s·ectfon 34, IPC. Hence, 'the
F"''~pfe'seiltap~e.als filed by th'e.ac.cused.. ·: · .· . · ·
, •• ···'. .•• •' -·-- .. l' ·.-·... ·:.· .,
, ·· · ·
. .. , . :,_

.. -: ,- .~:·Accused•appellants contended that the trial Court·
··:····. ·and:'.theHigh'Courtwere right in discharging the accw~ed
· ::: .for ,committing· certain offer:ices?pl.Jnisha:ble unde·r• the
.. ci :>~riz~ Chits ~nd M~ney Circ~ulation Scheme.(B~nning) Act,
.· ·.... 1978 and also under the Rese.rve Bank of India Act, 1934;
that· since the Stat~ .has not' preferred appeal :a~fainstthe
said order,the . decision has become.finaf;: thatb.othJhe
CourtS below were llitong in not 'di~cti~rgingJh~ c:ICcused
for
·. H ...... committing
. offences punishable
,,.. underSections
. 4 and
KURIACHAN CHACKO & ORS. v. STATE OF 611
KERA LA
... >
5 read with Sections 2(c) and 3 of the Act as also for an A
offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section
34, IPC; that the scheme floated by them could not fall
within the mischief of 'Money Circulation Scheme' as de-
fined in clause (c) of Section 2 of 1978 Act. If it is so, ban
- -( envisaged by Section 3 of the Act would not apply. Con- B
sequently, penal provisions of Sections 4 and 5 cannot
be invoked; and that the Courts below were wrong in
observing that prima facie, the provisions of the Act were
attracted and appellants could not be discharged. More-
over, for application of Section 415 IPC there must be c
fraudulent and dishonest intention which was not present
in the instant case. Penalty provision of Section 420 IPC
had, therefore, no application. Respondent-State submit-
ted that both the Courts below considered the relevant
... provisions of law, requisite ingredients under the 1978 Act
0
and formed a prima facie opinion that the scheme in ques-
tion was covered by definition clause 2(c) (Money Circu-
lation Scheme) and the case was required to be gone into
by a competent Court; the accused committed the offence
of 'cheating' as defined in Section 415 IPC and the ac-
cused could not be discharged. E
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 In the instant case, both the essentials of
money Circulation Scheme as defined under of Section
2(c) of the Prize, Chits & Money Circulation Scheme (Ban- F
ning) Act, are present. The scheme provides for (i) mak-
ing of quick or easy money, and (ii) it is dependant upon
an event or contingency relative or applicable to the en-
rolment of members into the scheme. A member would
be entitled to double the amount invested by him only af- G
ter enrolment of additional 14 members in the scheme.
The second ingredient, namely, such payment of money
is dependant on the "event or contingency relative or ap-
plicable to the enrolment of members into the scheme" is
-t
thus very much present. (Para - 32) [626 G-8] H
612 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 10 S.C.R.

.·A State of West Bengal vs. Swapan Kumar Guha,. (1982) 1
sec 561-"" distinguished.
1.2 The plain language of Section 2 of 1978 Act does
. not.insist that e:nrolment ofmembers must be by the mem-
bers already enrolled. It is impossible to read into the
8 statiJtory provision such requirement which is not.stipu-
- lated by Parliament Reading it so would result in re-writ-
ing of the section; which is certainly not permissible in
our constitutional system. The event or contingency on
the happening of which the amount would become pay-
C able must be relative or applicable to the enrolment of the
members intothescheme. It is immaterial by whom such
members are enrolled. It may be by members, by promot-
ers or their agents or by gullible sections of the society
suo motu (by themselves). The sole consideration i¥> that ...
D ·. paymen(of money rnust _be dependent on. an. event or .
· contingency relative or applicable to the enrohn~nt of
more persons into the scheme, nothing -more; though
nothing less. (Para - 33) [627 E-H]
.
· . ·
1.3 The Courts below rightly held that prima facie c·ase
had been made out againstthe acc1ised. Both th~ ingre-
. dientsnecessary for application of Section 2(c) of1978
Acta re present The trial Court, for coming to thatconclu-
. sion, referred to certain docllmei:its. The.High'Court also.
upheld the argument of the prosecution that the scheme
·F was a. 'rnathematical impossibility'. The promoters of the
. scheme very well knew that itis certain that the scheme
· was: impracticable and unworkable making tall promises
which the makers of the promises knew fully well that it
·Z"'G: ~·~ttlfl(~pJj~ork1 ~.~ccessfully.Jt could work tor so~e time
m'!~ha_t:~!)LI;I cal') .t?e robbed to pay Peter' but ultimately
-~h·in''tflere'is 'acUfrge mass of Peters, they will be left in
~ ~., 1 rt'.'I fl ~ ,-J ~ tiu.r::rvf.'t~ '. . . ?-· -
the lurch w1tnout any remedy as they would by then have
. ·g~eW.deceiV~cit~HcFdeprived of their money. (Paras -35 &
'37} [6281-o:E';· '63b H; 631 A-Bl . ,.
KURIACHAN CHACKO & ORS. v. STATE OF 613
.. ;._ KERA LA

1.4 The ratio laid down by this Co~rt in State Of Madhya A
Pradesh vs. Mir Basit Ali Khan & Ors., has no application. In
that case, the Court was considering the provisions of
Section 420 read with Section 1208 IPC. Obviously, it was
not a case under 1978 Act. On the facts and in the circum-
- ....- stances of the case, the Courts below were right in not B
interfering with the prosecution at the stage of framing of
charge. No reason is found to interfere with the impugned
order. (Paras-40 & 41) [633 C-E]
State Of Madhya Pradesh vs. Mir Basit Ali Khan & Ors.,
(1971) 2 sec 96 - held inapplicable. c
2.1 So far as the offence punishable under Section
420 read with Section34, IPC is concerned, it is true that
for application of penal provision of Section 420 IPC, there
---.. must be 'cheating' as defined in Section 415 IPC. (Para-
"I D
42) (633-E]
2.2 The trial Court as well as the High Court consid-
ered the facts of the case and held that there is element of
cheating inasmuch as a representation was made by the

.... accused that every unit holder will get double the amount E
invested by him; the representation was false, the maker
of the representation was aware that the representation
was not true and by such representation, he deceived the
victim to believe the representation to be true and actu-
>
f
I ~ .ated him to act on such representation. The promoters F
induced common public to part with money on the lure of
doubling the amount. Prima facie, the Courts were satis-
fied that but for such representation and the benefit
· sought to be given under the scheme, the victims would
not have acted on such representation. It was, therefore,
G
a case of application of Section 415 IPC. Prima facie case
-- --; had been made out in absence of better ~xplanation by
the accused. If it is so, it could be said to be a case for
application of Section 420 read with Section 34 IPC. (Para-
45) [634 D-G]
H
614 SUPREME COURT REPORTS . [2008] 10 S. C.R.

A 2.3 For the foregoing reasons, both the Courts be-
·low were right in framing the charge against the appel-
lants and no illegality has been committed by them in com-
ing to such conclusion. It is no doubt, true, that the above
orders do not mean that the accused have committed such
B offences. It only means that a prima facie case has been --J...~
made out to frame charge and at that stage, no interfer-
ence is called, for. (Para-47) [635 A-C]
3. It is clarified that no opinion has been expressed
on the merits on. the matter one way or the other. All the
C observations made 'by the trial Court, by the High Court
as well as by this Court, must be construed as limited to
the framing of charge and nothing more than that. As and
when the main matter will come up before the Court for
hearing, the Court will decide it on merits without being
D inhibited or influenced by the above observations. (Para- .
48) [635 C-E]
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 1044 of 2008
E From the final Judgment and Order dated 19.7.2007 of
the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Criminal Rev. Pet No.
4126 of 2006 (A)
WITH

F Crl. A. Nos. 1045 and 1046 of2008
U.U. Lalit, Saiby Jose Kidangoor, Wills Mathews, M.K.
Michael, C.N. Sree Kumar, Dushyant Parshar, P.R. Nayak, Tho-
mas Joseph, George, Hari Kumar G. and C.K Sasi forthe Ap-
pellants.
G
Rajinder Sachar, Shanti Bhushan, Bharat Swaroop
Sharma andR Sathish for the-Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
C.K. THAKKER, J. 1. Leave granted.
H
KURIACHAN CHACKO & ORS. v. STATE OF 615
KERALA [C.K. THAKKER, J.]

2. The present appeals have been instituted by the appel- A
lants against the judgment and order dated 191h July, 2007
passed by the High Court of Kerala in Criminal Revision Peti-
tion No. 4126 of 2006 and companion matters. By the impugned
order, the High Court dismissed revision petitions filed by the
appellants herein as also by the State of Kerala. s
3. To understand the issue raised in the present qppeals,
few relevant facts may be stated:
4. The appellants are partners of Mis LIS, Ernakulam, a
partnership firm engaged in the business of sale of lotteries c
and magazines after collecting advance money. They floated a
scheme known as "LIS Deepasthambham Scheme". The
scheme was simple in its conception. A person has to pay
Rs.625/- and purchase one unit of lotteries from the promoters.
The promoters will make use of Rs.350/- to purchase 35 lottery
tickets of the Kera la State Government each of Rs.10/- for the D
unit holderfor the next 35 weeks. If the unit holder wins any prize
up to Rs.5,000/- in the 35 draws, the promoters shall collect the
amount and pay the same to the unit holder. If the unit holder .
wins any prize above Rs.5,000/-, the ticket shall. be handed over
to the unit holder for collection of the amount. The balance of · E
Rs.275/- (Rs.625 - Rs.350) will be usedto make the unit holder
a subscriber of a magazine by name 'Thrikalam' for one ;year.
The said magazine would reproduce relevant and important
materials from other magazines. It would also furnish neces-
sa_ry information about the lottery tickets which have won prizes. F
5. The unit holder will be returned (paid) not only Rs.625/-
which. he had initially invested, but twice his investment i.e.
Rs.1,250/- (less Rs.100/- as service charges for the promoters
·and legal deduction for tax, etc.) on an early date. As per the G
scheme, on sale of three tickets of Rs.10/- each, the Govern-
ment would pay commission of 28% of which the promoters
would share 25% with the unit holders. Likewise, the publisher
of the magazine would give commission of 30% to the promot-
ers and promoters would share 25% with the unit holders. Al!
.·"·
H
616 SUPREME COURT REPORTS J2008] 10 S~C.R.
A.

A these amounts are available to the unit-holders. Under the
scheme, in order of stri.ct seniority, the senior most unit holder
would be paid Rs.1,250/- as soon as the requisite amounts are
available as commission with the promoters. The promoters, in
addition to 28% commission for the lottery tickets, and 30% .,
-J.--
B commission for the magazines, would also get commission for
the prizes won by the tickets sold through them from the Gov-
ernment. Those' amounts also would be entirely made available
for payment to .unit holders. If a unit holder is paid Rs.1 ,250/-
before the expiry of 35 weeks, no lottery tickets will be purchased
c on his behalf thereafter. It is because he had already been paid
the requisite amount. On the same reasoning, if the amount of
Rs.1 ,250/- is paid to the subscriber before the expiry of one
year, 'Thrikalam.' magazine would also not be. sent to the sub-
scriber thereafter. The price of unpurchased lottery tickets and
unused magazines thereafter will be used by the promoters to··
D
wards the payment of amount of Rs.1 ,250/- to other unit hold-
ers. According to the promoters, the scheme was viable as well
as workable. All persons would be able to double their invest-
ment at the earliest No specific ti~e, however, was given but it
was assured that the amount would be doubled at the earliest
E and it would be paid on the basis of seniority. Under the scheme, /

the amount of Rs.1,250/- (double the investment by the unit ('
holder) will be paid as soon as 14 more members are enrolled.
The advantage of technology was borrowed. Passwords could
be chosen. The.re was a web site.for promoters. The unit holder \
.J..
F could use his password and the site would reveal all details
about the tickets purchased on behalf of the unit holder by the
promoters. The unit holders thus would be able know the de-
tails of the tickets purchased for them by the promoters and
would also able to ascertain whether any prizes had been won
G by any ticket purchased on their behalf by the promoters.
..,....
~
6. The idea appeared to be very attractive. Several per-
sons participated and invested money. The membership coi-
lection during a short period of time reached to almost Rs.500
crores. Amounts were being paid to the unit holders initially very
H
•
KURIACHAN CHACKO & ORS. v. STATE OF 617
KERALA [C.K. THAKKER, J.]
__;')
promptly-on many occasions even be'ore the expiry of 35 A
weeks. More and more subscribers joined the queue. There
wa~ aggressive publicity and marketing through vis4al (TV) and
printed media (pamphlets and newspapers). The scheme was
proceeding very happily. More and more amounts were com-
..! ....- ing into the kitty of the promoters from unit holders . B

"' 7. Suddenly, however, there was a jolt to the scheme. Po-
lice Authorities registered a crime against the promoters for an
offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code
(IPC), under the Prize, Chits & Money Circulation Scheme (Ban-
ning) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and also c
under the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934. Certain proceed-
ings were initiated even earlier with which we are not concerned
in the present proceedings. The learned Chief Judicial Magis-
_j
~ trate, Ernakulam by an order, dated November 14, 2006, framed
:..
'l
charge against the appellants herein for offences punishable D
under Section 420 read with Section 34, IPC and under Sec-
tions 4 and 5 read with Section 2(c) and 3 of the Act. He, how-
ever, discharged all the accused for the offences punishable
under Sections 4 and 5 read with Sections 2(e) and (3) of the
Act and also under Sections 451(bb), 45S and 588 of the Re- E

-
-t

.,.t
\ serve Bank of India Act, 1934.
8. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the trial Court,
the accused as well as the State filed revision petitions in the
High Court of Kera la. Whereas the accused were aggrieved by
~ the order of the trial Court framing charge against them, the F
State was aggrieved by the order discharging the accused for
certain offences under the Act and under the Reserve Bank of
India Act, 1934.
9. A Single Judge of the High Court considered rival con- G
tentions of the parties and noted that the learned Additional
Advocate General/Special Public Prosecutor fairly submitted
that on the facts of the case Section 2(e) of the Act was not
attracted. Similarly, there was no error on the part of the trial
Court in not framing charge against the accused for offences
H_.
l t
618 . SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 10 S.C.R. ··,

A ·punishable .under the Reserve Bank of l ndia Act, 1934. The High
Court observed that though no express concession was made
by the State, it was not seriously challenged by the prosecution
that the trial Court had committed any error in discharging the
accused.
B 10. The accused, on the other hand, strenuously contended
that the trial Court was wholly wrong in framing charge against
the accused for an offence punishable under Section 420 read
with Section 34, IPC as also under Sections 4 and 5 read with
Sections 2( c) and 3 of the Act and the said order was liable to be
C set aside ordering discharge of the accused in respect of all of-
fences.
11. The High Court, after considering the rival contentions
of the parties and referring to the relevant decisions on the point,
held that the trial Court was right in discharging the accused for
0
offences punishable under Sections4 and 5 read with Sections
2(e) and 3 of the Act and also under the Reserve Ban.kof India
Act, 1934, The High Court held that the trial Court was also right
in framing the charge against the accused for offences· punish-
able under Sections 4 and 5 read with Sections 2(c) and 3 of .
E the Act and also under Section 420 read with Section 34, IPC.
The High Court, therefore, confirmed the ord.er passed by the f
trial Court and dismissed revisions of both the parties. The said
order is challenged by the appellants-accused_ in present ap-
peals.
F
12. On September 7, 2007, notice was issued by this Court.
On February 22, 2008, the matters were ordered to be posted
for final hearing on a non-miscellaneous day. That is how they
are before us.
G 13. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
14. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that ,,. ....
the trial Court and the High Court were right in discharging the
accused for certain offences punishable under the Act ancj also
H under the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934. The State has not
KURIACHAN CHACKO & ORS. v. STATE OF 619
- )
KERALA [C.K. THAKKER, J.]

preferred appeal against the said order and the decision has A
become final. He, however, contended that both the Courts were
\
wrong in not discharging the accused for offences punishable
under Sections 4 and 5 read with Sections 2(c) and 3 of the Act
as also for an offence punishable under Section 420 read with
,,,ic• 4" Section 34, IPC. B
15. It was submitted that the scheme formulated by the
appellants could not fall within the mischief of 'Money Circula-
tion Scheme' as defined in clause (c) of Section 2 of the Act. If it
is so, ban envisaged by Section 3 would not apply. Consequently,
penal provisions of Sections 4 and 5 cannot be invoked. The c
Courts below were wrong in observing that prima facie, the pro-
visions of the Act got attracted and appellants could not be dis-
charged. Moreover, for application of Section 415, IPC, there
must be fraudulent and dishonest intention which was not
present in the instant case. Penalty provision of Section 420, D
" IPC had, therefore, no application. Even there, the Courts were
wrong in framing charge against the accused.
16. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other
hand, supported the order passed by the trial Court and con-
firmed by the High Court. It was submitted that both the Courts E

'
considered the relevant provisions of law, requisite ingredients
under the Act and formed a prima facie opinion that the scheme
in question was covered by definition clause 2(c) (Money Cir-
culation Scheme) and the case was required to be gone into by
""' ~
a competent Court. Likewise, the Courts below observed that F
there was 'cheating' as defined in Section 415, IPC and the
accused could not be discharged. No fault can be found against
the approach adopted by both the Courts and the appeals de-
serve to be dismissed.
G
17. Before we deal with the merits of the matter and rea-
""' .. saning of the Courts below, it would be appropriate if we refer
to the relevant provisions of the Act.

18. The Preamb:Q of 1978 Act declares that it has been
enacted "to ban the promotion or conduct of prize chits and H
620 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 10 S.C.R.
.._
i
l( -
A money circulation schemes and for matters connected there-
with and incidental thereto".
J_
19. Section 2 is legislative dictionary and defines certain
terms. The phrase 'Money Circulation Scheme' is defined in
clause (c) which reads as under;
B
(c) "money circulation scheme" means any scheme, by
whatever name called, for the making of quick or
easy money, or for the receipt of any money or
valuable thing as the consideration for a promise to
c pay money, on any event or contingency relative or
-applicable to the enrolment of members into the
scheme, whether or" not such money or thing is
derived from the entrance money of the members of
such scheme or periodical subscriptions;
D 20. The definition is not simple. Judicial notice thereof had
been taken in the leading decision of this Court in State of West
Bengal v. Swapan Kumar Guha, (1982) 1 SCC 561.
Chandrachud, C.J. after taking note of legislative drafting, re-
shaped and rearranged Section 2(c) thus;
E
'money circulation scheme' means any scheme, by
whatever name called,
(i) for the making of quick or easy money, or
(ii) for the receipt of any money or valuable thing as the
F consideration for a promise to pay money,
on any event or contingency relative or applicable to the
. enrolment, of members into the scheme, whether or not
such money or thing is derived from the entrance money
G
of the members of such scheme or periodical
subscriptions;
21. Section 3 bans money circulation schemes or enrol-
ment as member to any such scheme or participation in such
scheme. Sections 4 and 5 are penal provisions and prescribe
H punishment. Section 6 deals with offences committed by Com-
KURIACHAN CHACKO & ORS. v. STATE GF 621
KERALA [C.K. THAKKER, J.]
... )
panies. Section 7 authorizes Police Officer not below the rank A
of officer in charge of a police station to exercise power to en-
ter and search premises and to seize things used for such
scheme. Section 8 provides for forfeiture of newspaper .and
publication containing money circulation scheme. Section ·9
.--r declares that no Court inferior to the Court of Chief Metropoli- 18 1,

tan Magistrate or Chief Judicial Magistrate shall try any offence
punishable under the Act. All offences punishable under the Act
haveibeen made cognizable under Section 10. Section 11 grants
exemption ·from the operation of the Act to certain money circu-
lation schemes.
~
22. From ithe perusal of the above provisions, it is dear
that the Act prohibits 'money circulation scheme'. The main
question, therefore, ·is whether the scheme in question is a
'money circulation scheme' covered by the Act?
ID
23. In Swapan Kumar Guha, this Court had an occasion
to consider the .provisions of the Act. Interpreting the connota-
tion 'Money Circulation Scheme' and speaking for the majority,
iChandrachud, C.J. 1observed:
"Commas or no commas, and howsoever thoughtfully one IE
may place them ·if they are to be there, I find it impossible
to take Clause (c)to:mean that any and every activity ''.for
1

the making of quick or easy money" is comprehended
within its scope. iF.or •the matter of that, I cannot ibelieve
,.,;. any law to ban ·every kind ,of activity for making quick ·Or :F
.._
easy money, without·more,1on;pain of.penal consequences.
It is fartoo vague and.arbitrary to·prescribe-that "whosoever
makes quick or easy.money shall~be1liable tO'be:punished
1

with fine or imprisonment".·For:then, in;the.absence ofany
demarcation of 'l~gitimate mon~y rmakin_g .activities lf(om
~
those which ,fall within1the1ban, itherquestion,whether1the
penal 1provision ·is attracted in a ·given tCase •Wifl ,de;p~nd
- 'I
.upon:the wilLand1temper, ·sweet.or sour, of;the,m~gistra~y.
:Besides, •speakif!g of·law .and imorals, .it.does ,not.seem
morally ,just ·or .proper :to :say 1th at, no person shall 1make
!'71
622 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 10 S.C.R.

(
,. ..
A quick or easy money, especially quick. A person who
makes quick money may do so legitimately by the use of .
his wits and wisdom and no moral turpitude may attach to ,,
it. One need not travel after to find speaking examples of
this. Indeed, there are honourable men (and now women)
B in all professions recognised traditionally as noble, who ~
make quite quick money by the use of their talents, acumen
and experience acquired over the years by dint of hard
work and industry. A lawyer who charges a thousand rupees
for a Special Leave Petition lasting five minutes (that is as
c far as a Judge's imagination can go}, a doctor who charges
a couple of thousands for an operation of tonsillitis lasting
ten minutes, an engineer, an architect, a chartered
~·
accountant and other professionals who charge likewise,
\
cannot by any stretch of imagination be brought into the
drag-net of Clause (c). Similarly, there are many other
D ~
vocations and business activities in which, of late, people
have been notoriously making quick money as, for
example, the builders and real estate brokers. I cannot
accept that the provisions of Clause (c) are directed
against any of these categories of persons. I do not suggest
E that law is powerless to reach easy or quick money and
if it wills to reach it, it can find a way to do it. But the point
of the matter is that it will verge upon the ludicrous to say
that the weapon devised by law to ban the making of
quick or easy money is the provision contained in Section i....:
F 2(c) of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes -*
(Banning) Act".
24. Explaining the ambit and scope of the expression
'Money Circulation Scheme', the Court proceeded to state;
\
G "In order to give meaning and content to the definition of ~
the expression 'money circulation scheme' which is
t·
contained in Section 2(c) of the Act, one has, therefore, to
t
look perforce to the adjectival Clause which qualifies the ~

words "for the making of quick or easy money". What is
H within the mischief of the Act is not "any scheme, by
I,.
KURIACHAN CHACKO & ORS. v. STATE OF 62~
KERALA [C.K. THAKKER, J.]

whatever name called, for the making of quick or easy A
money" simpliciter, but a scheme for the making of quick
or easy money, "on any event or contingency relative or
applicable to the enrolment of members into the scheme",
(whether or not such money or thing is derived from the
A + entrance money of the members of such scheme or their B
periodical subscriptions). Two conditions must, therefore,
be satisfied before a person can be held guilty of an
offence under Section 4 read with Sections 3 and 2(c) of
the Act. In the first place, it must be proved that he is
promoting or conducting a scheme for the making of quick C
or easy money and secondly, the chance or opportunity of
making quick or easy money must be shown to depend
upon an event or contingency relative or applicable to the
enrolment of members into that scheme. The legislative
draftsman could have thoughtfully foreseen and avoided
0
all reasonable controversy over the meaning of the
expression 'money circulation scheme' by shaping its
definition in this form;
'money circulation scheme' means any scheme, by
whatever name called, E
(i) for the making of quick or easy money, or
(ii) for the receipt of any money or valuable thing as the
consideration for a promise to pay money,
on any event or contingency relative or applicable to the F
enrolment, of members into the scheme, whether or not
such money or thing is derived from the entrance money of
the members of such scheme or periodical subscriptions;
I have reshaped the definition, in order to bring out its G
meaning clearly, without adding or deleting a single word
or comma from the original text of Section 2(c). The
substance of the matter is really not in doubt : only the form
of the definition is likely to create some doubt as to the
meaning of the expression which is defined and, therefore, H
624 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 10 S.C.R.

I have made a formal modification in the definition without
·doing violence to its language and indeed, without even
so much as altering a comma".
25. The Court observed that besides the prize chits, the
"s Act aims at banning 'Money Circula.tion Scheme'. It is, there-
fore, necessary that the activity charged as falling within the +~ ·
mischief of the Act, must be shown 'to be a part of the scheme l
for making quick or easy money depending upon the happen-
ing or non-happening of an even·t or contingency relative or ap-
plicable to the enrolment of members into the scheme.
c
26. Referring to dictionary meanings, this Court proceeded
to state;
"Therefore, a transaction under which, one party deposits
with the other or lends to that other a sum of money on
D promise of being paid interest at a rate higher than the
agreed rate of interest cannot, without more, be a 'money
circulation scheme' within the meaning of Section 2(c} of
the Act, howsoever high the promised rate of interest may '
t

be in comparison with the agreed rate. What that section
E requires is that such reciprocal promises, express or
implied, must depend for their performance on the
happening of an event or contingency relative or
applicable to the enrolment of members into the scheme.
In other words, there has to be a community of interest
F in the happening of such event or contingency".
(emphasis supplied)
27. On the facts of the case, the Court held that it was not
a 'Money Circulation Scheme' and proceedings initiated against
(
'G the accused were liable to be dropped. ,

28. Strongly relying on Swapan Kumar Guha and the ob-
ser\tations of this Court,'the.leCJrned counsel for the appellants
contended that the point is directly covered by the said deci-
·sion and the Courts below were not right in distinguishing it and
iH in not discharging the.accused.
- 'f
KURIACHAN CHACKO & ORS. v. STATE OF
KERALA [C.K. THAKKER, J.]
625

29. We are unable to uphold the contention. We have A
closely gone through Swapan Kumar Guha and in our opinion,
the case is clearly distinguishable. This Court, in that case, re-
produced First Information Report (FIR) in toto. The Court then
.... + considered whether FIR pr~ma facie disclosed an offence un-
' der the Act. The Court analyzed FIR 'carefully, and even liber- B
ally' and came to the conclusion that the FIR against 'Sanchaita
Investments' and its partners ('accused' in that case) made in
respect of following allegations;
(1) The firm had been offering fabulous interest@ 48%
per annum to its members, which rate of interest c
was later reduced to 36% per ~nnum;
(2) Such high rate of interest was being paid even though
the loan certificate receipts show that interest was
liable to be paid at the rate of 12% per annum only;
"" and
D

(3) The fact that interest was paid in excess of 12%
shows clearly that a 'Money Circulation Scheme' was
being promoted and conducted for the making of
quick or easy money. E
30. The Court then proceeded to apply the provisions of
(,.

1 the Act to the allegations of prosecution against the accused.
_J According to the Court, the respondents did not allege, directly
._
or indirectly, that the firm was promoting or conducting a scheme
for the making of quick or easy money, dependent on any event F
or contingency relative or applicable to the enrolment of mem-
bers into the scheme. Secondly, the FIR did not contain any
allegation whatsoever that the persons who advanced or de-
posited their monies with the firm were participants of a scheme
~
for the making of quick or easy money, dependent upon any G
;
such event or contingency. The Court noted the contention of
the learned counsel for the prosecution that the accused were
promoting or conducting a scheme for making quick or easy
' money. According to the Court, however, such argument could
not be upheld since it was fallacious. It was observed in the H
626 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 10 S.C.R.

A paragraph we have reproduced hereinabove that it would be
arbitrary to hold that whoever makes 'quick dr easy money'
should be punished. The Court noted some illustrative cases in
which a person may be able to make 'quick or easy money'; for
instance, a lawyer who charges a thousand rupees (in early
B eighties, not now) fora Special Leave Petition lasting five min-
utes, a doctor who charges a couple of thousands for an opera-
tion of tonsillitis lasting ten minutes, an engineer, an a~chitect; a
chartered accountant and other professionals who charge like-
wise. There are many other vocations and business activities
c in which people notoriously make quick money, e.g. builders
and real estate brokers. From that, however, one cannot jump
to the conclusion that they are all liable to be punished under
Sections 4 and 5 of the Act.
31. The Court also took into account, apart from FIR, a
D detailed affidavit in reply filed in the High Court. Even in the
said affidavit, there was no clear basis in respect of allegations,
nor material was disclosed to show that prima facie, the firm
was promoting or conducting a scheme for making quick or
easy money which was dependent on any event or contingency
E relative or applicable to the enrolment of members into the
scheme. The 'song' of the State was that the scheme conducted
by the accused would generate black money and would para-
lyze economy of the country. The Court was conscious and alive
of seriousness of the problem and observed that unquestion-
F ably a private party could not be allowed to issue 'bearer bonds'
by a back.door. At the same time, however, such activities should · ·
be curbed by the Government by taking appropriate action in
accordance with law. But if the activity does not fall within the
definition of 'money circulation scheme' within the meaning of
G Section2(c) of the.Act, no prosecution can be launched against
them. Thus, the second ingredient of Section 2(c) of the Act,. ,.. ..
according to .the Court, was totally absent. .
32. In the instant case, both the essentials of Section 2(c)
are present. The scheme provides for (i) making pf quick or
H easy money, and (ii) it is dependant LIPOn an event or contin-:
KURIACHAN CHACKO & ORS. v. STATE OF 627
KERALA [C.K. THAKKER, J.]
"' 1

gency relative or applicable to the enrolment of members into A
the scheme. As observed by us, a member would be entitled to
double amount only after his enrolment, additional 14 members
are enrolled in the scheme. The second ingredient, namely, such
payment of money is dependant on the "event or continge~cy
-I + relative or applicable to fhe enrolment of members into the B
scheme" is thus very much present. Swapan Kumar Guha, there-
fore, in our considered opinion, does r19t apply and carry the
case of the accused further.

- 33. It was next contended that there is no obligation on the
part of the unit holder to enlist/enroll more members into the c
scheme and, therefore, the scheme does not attract Sectiqn
2(c). The contention has no force. Section 2(c) no where pro-
vides that a member of the scheme must himself enroll other
members and only in that eventuality, the provision of the Act
would apply. The section does not provide for positive or domi- D
" nant role to be played by a member of the scheme. In our opin-
ion, the requirement of law is "an event or contingency relative
or applicable to the enrolment of members into the scheme"
and nothing more. The plain language of the section does not
insist that such enrolment of members must be by the member$ E
already enrolled. It is impossible to read into the statutory provi ..

.,•
..>
sion such requirement which is not stipulated by Parliament.
Upholding of the argument of the learned counsel would result
in re-writing of the section, which is certainly not permissible in
... our constitutional system. The event or contingency on the hap- F
pening of which the amount would become payable must be
relative or applicable to the enrolment of the members into the
scheme. It is immaterial by whom such members are enrolled.
It may be by members, by promoters or their agents or by gull-
ible sections of the society suo motu (by themselves). The sole
G
consideration is that payment of money must be dependent on
~ an event or contingency relative or applicable to the enrolment
of more persons into the scheme, nothing more, though nothing
less. In the present case, the second ingredient is very much
present.
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 10 S.C.Ft

fo.., 34. It was then contended by the learned counsel for the
appellants that inJhe present case, all the promises have been
foHiiled by the promoters and contract was complete inasmucti
as for payment of Rs.625/-by the unit holder, he was given 3S
lottety tickets each of Rs.10/- and thus an amount of Rs.3:50/~
1

g, gets appropriated~ Likewise, for the balance amount of Rs.275/
- (Rs.625/~ - Rs.350/.'), he has been made subscriber of a maga·
zine 'Thrikaiam'for one year. Nothing, therefore; remain.s to be
d6ne thereafter by the promoters except the benefit which is·
iii<ely to accrue in future. Such a scheme cannot be termed as a
0 scheme for the making quick or easy money on .any event or
cioritingehcy relative or applicable to the enrolment of the mem-
bers of the scheme.
35. We are unable to agree with the learned· counsel. The
Courts below rightly held thatprima faciecase had been made
IJ out against the accused. Both the ingredients necessary for
application of Section 2(c) of the Act are present in the case on
hand. The trial Court, for coming to that condusiori, referred to
certain documents. The advertisement clearly declared that a
member would get double the amount when after his enrolment,
E two members were enrolled under him and thereafter, 4 other
persons were enrolled and after the rolled 4 persons, 8 per-
sonswere enrolled under them. Thus, only after 14 persons un-'
d~r tlie first enrolled· person become members under the
.• scheme, the first person would get Rs.1,250/.- i.e., double the
F amount of Rs~625/- (1 +2+4+8). The trial Court also noted that
Kl.lriachan Chacko (Accused No.1) who proposed the project
tor imple.mer)tation, described how the project would work from
which also itis clear that the double amount will be given to a
·. personwho purchases a unit only after 14 persons are enrolled
G . subsequent to him..
.36.''fnJhe affidavit in reply filed in this Court, respondent
State, has<relied .upon· a· letter written to the Reserve Bank of
India by the .accused on Octo~~r 9, 2004wherein the scheme
hasbeen explained. The relevantpartreads thus: ·
H
KURIACHAN CHACKO & ORS. v. STATE OF 629
... 1 KERALA [C.K. THAKKER, J.]

1. We are collecting Rs.625 from a person to be A
considered as a member of the Deepasthambham
project.
2. The Rs.625 is intended as follows
JI -+
Rs.10 worth Kerala Lottery Ticket per week for 35 B
weeks : Rs.350/-
Rs.10 worth Thrikalam Tri-Monthly Collage Magazine
..L
one year subscription : Rs. 275/-

3. As such, we are collecting money in advance for the c
Kerala Lottery ticket and subscription of the Thrikalam
magazine and not as DEPOSIT at all.

4. We are giving membership in a particular style-
adopting the principle of Multi Level Marketing
method. D

1st Stage First One member joins
2nct Stage Below him Two members join
3rd Stage Below them Four members join
E
4th Stage Below them Eight members join

.., ·~ Thus 14 members join below the first one.
~ 5. From one membership we take 27% commission to
)..
be distributed in the three stages in the above F
manner.

On collecting such commissions, we get Rs.1150/-
from the members below him. Otherwise, when the
14th member joins, the commission reserved for the
first member is paid. G
~ -~

6. The Rs.1150 paid to the first member is claimed by
us as payment of double the amount he had entrusted
and we explain it as "Refund and Commission" less
our service charge.
H
630 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 10 S.C.R.
~
..
A i.e. Refund Rs.625
Commission Rs.625
Rs.1250
Less Service Charge Rs. 100 t- ...
B
Rs.1150
7. Once the Rs.1150 is paid to the member, the
membership is ceased, and no more ticket or
Thrikalam will be given to him, even if the promised
c 35 tickets and one year Thrikalam are not yet over.
8. To justify this stand of ours, though the Rs.1150 paid
is actually the commission, we term it as Refund and
Commission so that the member shall not make any
claim for the remaining tickets or Thrikalam. y
D
9. If the member wish to get lottery ticket and Thrikalam
again he has to join again by taking new membership.
10. The lottery commission available to us on Kerala
Government Lottery is 28% alone. As the commission
E
we are paying to the member is 27%, the margin for
us is only 1%.
But then there will be a lot of other commissions on .._
prizes bagged by the members which will add to our ..._
gain. ~
F
11. At the beginning, we offered the Superlotto and
Thunderball on line tickets also. But we stopped that
since 2 months and now we are issuing only Kerala
Govt. tickets. By October end, we will be purchasing
G a minimum of 1 lakh tickets every week i.e. 10 lakh
rupees worth tickets in a week from Kerala r
Government.
37. The High Court also upheld the argument of the pros-
ecution that the scheme was a 'mathematical impossibility'. The
H
KURIACHAN CHACKO & ORS. v. STATE OF 631
-. .., KERALA [C.K. THAKKER, J.]

promoters of the scheme very well knew that it is certain that the A ·
scheme was impracticable and unworkable making tall prom-
ises which the makers of the promises knew fully well that it
could not work successfully. It could work for some time in that
> -+- 'Paul can be robbed to pay Peter' but ultimately when there is a
large mass of Peters, they will be left in the lurch without any B ·
remedy as they would by then have been deceived and deprived
of their money. ·
38. The Court, taking into account the scheme as a whole,
recorded a finding thus:
c
"The· question therefore is very important as to whether
the Scheme is a possibility or is only a tall false claim
made to fraudulently induce persons to part with their
money. In this context, it has to be seen that the profitable
working of the Scheme is impossible from the very nature
0
of· the Scheme offered. Simple arithmetics reveal that
utilising the amount of Rs. 625/-, only an amount of Rs.
180.50 will be available as commission of which Rs. 24.25
is claimed by the promoter and Rs. 156.25 is offered for
payment to the unit holders. The details of the same are
given below: E

Head Amount Commission
Total For the For the
Percentage Promoter Subscriber
amount Percentage/ Percentage/ F
amount Amount
Lottery Rs. 350/- 28% 3% 25%
Tickets (Rs. 98) (Rs. 10.50) Rs. 87.50
Magazine Rs. 275/- 30% 5% 25%
(Rs. 82. 50) (Rs. 13. 95) Rs. 68. 75
Rs. 625/- Rs. 180. 50 Rs. 24. 25 Rs. 156. 25
G
Deficit in each
It Rs.625/- were to be returned =625 -156.25 = Rs. 468.75

- ' Deficit in each
If Rs.1250/- were to be returned =1250 -156.25=Rs.1093. 75
H
632 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 10 S.C.R.
"'{ -
A If the amount of Rs. 625/- were to be returned, there will be
a deficit of Rs.468.75. If double the amount i.e., Rs. 1,250/
-were to be returned, there will be a deficit of Rs. 1,093.75.
Therefore for every person for whom double payment is
made, the promoter will have to make Rs. 1,093.75 an.d +- . .
B this obviously is paid to him from the money which
subsequent subscribers pay as the price of the unit Of
course, I have not te!ken note of the uncertain commission
which would be receivable by the promoter for prizes won
by the unit holders through them. I have also not taken
c specific note of the savings in respect of unpurchased
tickets and non-supplied mage3zines after the subscriber
receives the double amount and closes the transaction
before elapse of the period of 35 months. It must be evident
for any discerning mind that this Scheme cannot work
D
unless more and more subscribers join and the amount
paid by them as unit price is made use of to pay the "
previous subscribers. The system is an inherently fragile
system which is unworkable. Foolish, gullible and stupid
persons alone may fall for the Scheme without carefully
analysing the stipulations of the Scheme. It would be totally
E erroneous to assume that the offence of cheating would
not lie if the persons deceived are gullible, unintelligent
and stupid persons. The system and the law has a duty to
protect such victims of crime also. According to me, there
is no reason to assume that the promoters had no ..4(

F contumacious intention and they embarked on the venture
without any culpable motive on the honest assumption
that the tickets sold through them will win prizes and
sufficient commission will be available to pay double the
amount to all the unit holders".
G
39. The Court also stated; ;--

"I take note of the fact that inherently there is merit in the

H
allegation of the prosecution that the Scheme is so grossly
unworkable that the persons wt10 made representations
to that effect and induced persons to part with money did
- /

·~ .
KURIACHAN CHACKO & ORS. v. STATE OF 633
KERALA [C.K. THAKKER, J.]
.> 1
entertain the contumacious intention. They knew fully well A
that unworkable false representations were being made.
The obvious attempt, it can be presumed at this stage,
was to induce persons by such false unworkable
representations to part with money. Initially some
subscribers can be kept satisfied to induce them and others B
similarly placed to join the long queue. But inevitably and
inescapably later subscribers are bound to suffer unjust
loss when they swallow the false promises and make
payments".

40. The ratio laid down by this Court in State Of Madhya C
Pradesh v. Mir Basit Ali Khan & Ors., (1971) 2 SCC 96 has no
application. In that case, the Court was considering the provi-
sions of Section 420, IPC read with Section 1208. Obviously, it
was not a case under 1978 Act.
D
41. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in
our opinion, the Courts below were right in not interfering with
the prosecution at the stage of framing of charge. We see no
reason to interfere with the order.
42. So far as the offence punishable under Section 420 E
read with Section 34, IPC is concerned, it is true that for appli-
cation of penal provision of Section 420, IPC, there must be
'cheating' as defined in Sedion 415, IPC.

43. The said Section reads thus:
.~ F
,._ 415. Cheating
Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or
dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any
property to any person, or to consent that any person shall
retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so : G
deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not '
JO ~ do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or
omission-causes·or is likely to· cause damage or'harm 'to
that person in ·booy, mind, reputation ·or property, is said
to "cheat". H
634 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008]10 S.C.R.

A 44. Mere reading of the Section makes it clear that it re-
quires the following ingredients to be satisfied;
1. Deception of any person;
2.(a) Fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person;
B (i) to deliver any property to any person, or
(ii) to consent that any person shall retain any
property, or
(b) intentionally.inducing that person to do or omit to do
c anything which he would not do or omit if he were not
so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is
likely to cause damage or harm to that person in
body, mind,. reputation or property. [vide Ram Jas,
(1970) 2 SCC 740; Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma
D v. State of Bihar, (2000) 4 SCC 168; S. W Pa/amitkar
v. State of Bihar, (2002) 1 sec 241]. r
45. The trial Court as well as the High Court considered
the facts of the case and held that there is element of cheating
inasmuch as a representation was made by the accused that
E every unit holder will get double the amount invested by him; the
representation was false, the maker of the representation was
aware that the representation was not true and by such repre-
sentation, he deceived the victim to believe the representation
to be true and actuated him to act on such representation. The
F promoters induced common public to part with money on the
lure of doubling the amount. Prima facie, the Courts were satis-
fied that but for such representation and the benefit sought to
be given· under the scheme, the victims would not have acted
on such representation. It was, therefore, a case of application
G of Section 415, IPC. Prima facie case had been made out in
absence of better explanation by the accused. lf it is so, it could
be said to be a case for application of Section 420 read with
Section 34, IPC, of course, at this stage.
46. In our opinion, the Courts below have not committed
H
KURIACHAN CHACKO & ORS. v. STATE OF 635
.>
KERALA [C.K. THAKKER, J.]
1
any error in coming to such conclusion at the stage of framing A
of charge and no interference by this Court is, therefore, called
for.
47. For the foregoing reasons, in our opinion, both the
,. -1' Courts below were right in framing the charge against the ap-
pellants and no illegality has been committed by them in com- B
ing to such conclusion. It is no doubt, true, that the above orders
do not mean that the accused have committed such offences. It
only means that a prima facie case has been made.out to frame
charge and at that stage, no interference is called for. We are,
'"
therefore, not inclined to interfere with the saidfrder. The ap- c
peals deserve to be dismissed and are hereby' aismissed.

48. Before parting with the matter, we may clarify that we
may not be understood to have expressed any opinion on the
merits on the matter one way or the other. All the observations
-y D
made by the trial Court, by the High Court as well as by us in this
judgment, must be construed as limited to the framing of charge
and nothing more than that. As and when the main matter will
come up before the Court for hearing, the Court will decide it on
merits without being inhibited or influenced by the above ob-
servations. E

49. Ordered accordingly.

S.K.S. Appeals dismissed.
,,,
)<