Crl.A.No.21 of 2023 etc.,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

RESERVED ON : 17.07.2025

PRONOUNCED ON : 25.07.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

Crl.A.Nos.21, 22, 133, 317, 423 of 2023 and

538 & 623 of 2025

Cr.A.No.21 of 2023:-

M.S.Guru @ M.Gurusamy ... Appellant

Vs.

The State rep. by

The Deputy Superintendent of Police,

Economic Offences Wing-II,

Namakkal District.

(Crime No.1/2012) ... Respondent

PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., to

call for the records and to set aside the judgment and sentence dated

22.09.2021 imposed in C.C.No.28 of 2012 passed by the learned Special

Judge, Special Court under TNPID Act, Coimbatore.

For Appellant in

Crl.A.Nos.21,22,423 of 2023

538 & 623 of 2025 : Mr.R.Vivekananthan

For Appellant in

Crl.A.No.133 of 2023: Mr.G.Murugendran

For Appellants in

Crl.A.No.317 of 2023: Mr.V.M.R.Rajentren

For Respondent

in all Crl.As. : Mr.S.Raja Kumar

Additional Public Prosecutor

Page 1 of 48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/07/2025 06:02:45 pm )

Crl.A.No.21 of 2023 etc.,

COMMON JUDGMENT

These appeals have been filed as against the judgments

dated 22.09.2021, 30.11.2021, 17.03.2023, 29.01.2025 & 06.06.2025

passed by the learned Special Judge, Special Court under TNPID Act,

Coimbatore, in C.C.Nos.28 of 2012, 1 of 2013, 03 of 2013, 16 of 2012 &

29 of 2012 respectively, thereby convicting the appellants for the

offences punishable under Sections 120-B r/w 420 & 420 of IPC and

Section 5 of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (In

Financial Establishments) Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as “the

TNPID Act”)

CASE OF THE PROSECUTIONS :-

Crl.A.Nos.317 of 2023 & 423 of 2025 :-

These appeals have been filed as against the judgment dated

17.03.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge, Special Court under

TNPID Act, Coimbatore, in C.C.No. 3 of 2013, thereby convicting the

appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B r/w 420 &

420 of IPC and Section 5 of the TNPID Act.

Page 2 of 48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/07/2025 06:02:45 pm )

Crl.A.No.21 of 2023 etc.,

1.1.There are totally five accused in this case and the appellants

in Crl.A.No.317 of 2023 are arrayed as A3 to A5. The appellant in

Crl.A.No.423 of 2013 is arrayed as A2. The case of the prosecution is

that the first accused M/s. Susi Land Promoters Private Limited, a

financial establishment in which, A2 was the Managing Director, A3 was

the Director and A4 & A5 were the Managers of the first accused

company. A2 to A5 were looking after the day to day management affair

as administrators and they canvassed by wide publicity through

advertisement in dailies and vernacular magazines to receive deposits.

1.2.Accordingly, they received deposits of Rs.50,000/- as one

unit and promised to pay Rs.2,500/- per month as interest for 24 months

and also promised to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- for every six months and at

the end of 24 months, the deposit will be refunded or equivalent land will

be registered. Under the said plan, A2 to A5 collected deposits in the

name of the first accused company to the tune of Rs.88,10,000/- from 45

depositors. Thereafter they failed to return any profit and also failed to

return the deposited amount as promised by them. On the complaint

lodged by several victims, the respondent registered the FIR in Crime

No.20 of 2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 406 &

Page 3 of 48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/07/2025 06:02:45 pm )

Crl.A.No.21 of 2023 etc.,

420 of IPC and Section 5 of the TNPID Act. After completion of

investigation, they filed final report and the same was taken cognizance

by the trial Court in C.C.No.3 of 2013.

1.3.In order to bring the charges to home, the prosecution had

examined P.W.1 to P.W.45 and marked documents in Ex.P.1 to

Ex.P.185. On the side of the accused, they examined D.W.1 to D.W.4

and marked documents in Ex.D.1 to Ex.29. The Court exhibits were

marked as Ex.C.1 & Ex.C.2 and Ex.X1 to Ex.X.3. On perusal of the oral

and documentary evidences, the trial Court found all the accused guilty

for the offences punishable under Section, 420, 120-B r/w. 420 of IPC

and sentenced A2 to A5 as follows:-

S.No.Conviction Sentence

1 Section 120-B

r/w.420 of IPC (45

counts)

to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a

period of seven (7) years and to pay fine of

Rs.13,000/- each for each counts, in default

to undergo rigorous imprisonment for

further period of one and half (1½) years.

2Section 420 of IPC

(45 counts)

to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a

period of seven (7) years and to pay fine of

Rs.13,000/- each for each counts, in default

to undergo rigorous imprisonment for

further period of one and half (1½) years.

3Section 5 of

TNPID Act (45

counts)

to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a

period of ten (10) years and to pay fine of

Rs.13,000/- each, for each counts, in default

Page 4 of 48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/07/2025 06:02:45 pm )

Crl.A.No.21 of 2023 etc.,

S.No.Conviction Sentence

to undergo rigorous imprisonment for

further period of two (2) years.

Further the first accused company was sentenced to pay fine of

Rs.13,000/- for each counts in total Rs.11,70,000/- for two offences

under Section 420 of IPC and Section 5 of TNPID Act and A2 to A5

shall pay the said fine amount equally Rs.2,95,500/- each. Aggrieved by

the same, the present appeals.

Crl.A.Nos. 22 &133 of 2023 :-

2. These Criminal Appeals have been filed as against the

judgment dated 30.01.2021 passed by the learned Special Judge, Special

Court under TNPID Act, Coimbatore, in C.C.No.1 of 2013, thereby

convicting the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 120-

B r/w 420 & 420 of IPC and Section 5 of the TNPID Act.

2.1.There are totally four accused in which, the appellant in

Crl.A.No.22 of 2023 is arrayed as A2 and the appellant in Crl.A.No.133

of 2023 is arrayed as A3. The case of the prosecution was that the first

accused was the company and the second accused was the Managing

Director of the first accused. The third accused was the Manager of the

Page 5 of 48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/07/2025 06:02:45 pm )

Crl.A.No.21 of 2023 etc.,

first accused company, who looks after the day to day administration and

financial arrairs of the first accused company. A4 is the wife of the

second accused who took active part in the management and day to day

affairs of the first accused company. All the accused persons, with

common intention had canvassed the general public by giving false

promise that they would give higher rate of interest for the deposits made

under the various scheme. As per the first scheme, if the depositor

deposited a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-, it was construed as one unit and the

accused promised to supply 10 Emu birds, provide feeds for the Emu

birds, erect sheds, provide free medical checkups and further promised a

monthly return of Rs.6,000/- for 24 months and a yearly bonus of

Rs.20,000/- for two years along with free insurance by the company.

After the maturity period of 24 months, the deposit amount of

Rs.1,50,000/- will be repaid. Under second scheme viz., VIP Scheme, if

the depositor deposited a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- it will be construed as one

unit and they would allot 10 Emu birds to the depositor and a maintain

the emu birds in their farms on behalf of the depositors and a monthly

return of Rs.7,000/- for 24 months will be paid along with a sum of

Rs.30,000/- as yearly bonus for two years and after the maturity period of

24 months, the entire deposit amount will be repaid.

Page 6 of 48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/07/2025 06:02:45 pm )

Crl.A.No.21 of 2023 etc.,

2.2.Accordingly, from 01.07.2011 to 14.09.2012, all the accused

persons conspired together and through frequent advertisements for both

the schemes, canvassed and explained to the depositors, thereby

collecting a sum of Rs.1,02,07,500/- from 37 depositors. Thereafter, they

failed to comply their promise and failed to return the deposits. On the

complaint from several depositors, the respondent registered the FIR in

Crime No.14 of 2012 for the offence punishable under Section 120-B,

420 of IPC and Section 5 of the TNPID Act. After completion of

investigation, they filed final report and the same was taken cognizance

in C.C.No.1 of 2013.

2.3.In order to bring the charges to home, the prosecution had

examined P.W.1 to P.W.37 and marked documents in Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.226

On the side of the accused, they examined D.W.1 to D.W.3 and marked

documents in Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.13. On perusal of the oral and documentary

evidences, the trial Court acquitted the fourth accused alone and

convicted the A1 to A3 viz., the appellants herein, for the offence

punishable under Sections 120-B r/w. 420 & 420 of IPC and Section 5 of

the TNPID Act and sentenced them as follows :-

Page 7 of 48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/07/2025 06:02:45 pm )

Crl.A.No.21 of 2023 etc.,

S.No.Conviction Sentence

1 Section 120-B

r/w.420 of IPC (36

counts)

to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a

period of seven (7) years and to pay fine of

Rs.25,000/- each for each counts, in default

to undergo rigorous imprisonment for

further period of one and half (1½) years.

2Section 420 of IPC

(36 counts)

to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a

period of seven (7) years and to pay fine of

Rs.25,000/- each for each counts, in default

to undergo rigorous imprisonment for

further period of one and half (1½) years.

3Section 5 of

TNPID Act (36

counts)

to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a

period of ten (10) years and to pay fine of

Rs.25,000/- each, for each counts, in default

to undergo rigorous imprisonment for

further period of two (2) years.

Further the first accused company was sentenced to pay fine of

Rs.25,000/- for each counts in total Rs.18,00,000/- for two offences

under Section 420 of IPC and Section 5 of TNPID Act and A2 was

sentenced to pay the said fine amount on behalf of A1, in default to

undergo further two years rigorous imprisonment. Aggrieved by the

same, the present appeals.

Crl.A.No.21 of 2023 :-

3.This Criminal Appeal has been filed as against the judgment

dated 22.09.2021 passed by the learned Special Judge, Special Court

under TNPID Act, Coimbatore, in C.C.No.28 of 2012, thereby

Page 8 of 48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/07/2025 06:02:45 pm )

Crl.A.No.21 of 2023 etc.,

convicting the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 120

r/w 420 & 420 of IPC and Section 5 of the TNPID Act.

3.1.There are totally nine accused in which the appellant is

arrayed as the second accused. The case of the prosecution was that the

first accused was the company and the second accused was the Managing

Director of the first accused. The third accused was the General Manager

and the fourth accused was the Manager. The accused 5 to 9 were

working in the first accused company and were looking after the day to

day affairs of the company. All the accused persons conspired together

with common intention to cheat the depositors, they had canvassed them

individually by giving false promise about various schemes and promised

to repay the deposits with bonus. As per scheme-I, a sum of

Rs.1,50,000/- was construed as one unit and for that the accused

promised to supply six Emu birds, provide feeding for the Emu birds,

erect sheds, provide free medical check up and further promised a

monthly return of Rs.6,000/- for two years and a yearly bound of

Rs.20,000/- for two years along with free insurance by the firm. As per

the scheme-II viz., VIP Scheme, the Emu birds would be maintained in

their farms on behalf of the depositors and sum of Rs.1,50,000/- was

Page 9 of 48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/07/2025 06:02:45 pm )

Crl.A.No.21 of 2023 etc.,

construed as one unit and for the same, they would allot six Emu birds in

favour of the depositors and maintain them. They would pay a monthly

return of Rs.7,000/- for two years along with a yearly bonus of

Rs.30,000/- for two years and after the maturity period of 24 months, the

deposit amount will be repaid.

3.2.Accordingly, the accused had collected the sum of

Rs.2,39,15,600/- from 96 depositors and thereafter they did not even pay

any amount and also failed to return the deposit amount as assured by

them. On receipt of several complaints from the depositors, the

respondent registered the FIR in Crime No.1 of 2012 for the offences

punishable under Section 120-B, 420 of IPC and Section 5 of the TNPID

Act. After completion of investigation, the respondent filed final report

and the same was taken cognizance in C.C.No.285 of 2012.

3.3.On the side of the prosecution, they had examined P.W.1 to

P.W.89 and marked documents in Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.423. On the side of the

accused no one was examined and they marked Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.6. On

perusal of oral and documentary evidences, the trial Court acquitted the

accused Nos.3 to 9 and convicted A1 & A2 for the offence punishable

Page 10 of 48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/07/2025 06:02:45 pm )

Crl.A.No.21 of 2023 etc.,

under Sections 120-B r/w.420 & 420 of IPC and Section 5 of the TNPID

Act and sentenced as follows :-

S.No.Conviction Sentence

1 Section 120-B

r/w.420 of IPC (96

counts)

to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a

period of seven (7) years and to pay fine of

Rs.50,000/- for each counts, in default to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for further

period of one and half (1½) years.

2Section 420 of IPC

(96 counts)

to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a

period of seven (7) years and to pay fine of

Rs.50,000/- for each counts, in default to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for further

period of one and half (1½) years.

3Section 5 of

TNPID Act (96

counts)

to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a

period of ten (10) years and to pay fine of

Rs.50,000/- for each counts, in default to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for further

period of two (2) years.

Further the first accused company was sentenced to pay fine of

Rs.50,000/- for each counts in total Rs.96,00,000/- for two offences

punishable under Section 420 of IPC and Section 5 of TNPID Act and

A2 was sentenced to pay the said fine amount on behalf of A1, in default

to undergo further two years rigorous imprisonment. Aggrieved by the

same, the present appeals.

Page 11 of 48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/07/2025 06:02:45 pm )

Crl.A.No.21 of 2023 etc.,

Crl.A.No.623 of 2025 :-

4.This Criminal Appeal is directed as against the judgment

dated 06.05.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, Special Court

under TNPID Act, Coimbatore, in C.C.No.29 of 2012, thereby

convicting the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 420

& 406 of IPC and Section 5 of the TNPID Act.

4.1.There are totally four accused in which the appellants are

arrayed as A1 & A2. The case of the prosecution was that the first

accused was the company and the second accused was the Managing

Director of the first accused company. Third and fourth accused were the

General Manager and Receptionist of the first accused company

respectively. All the accused conspired together with an intention to

cheat the depositors and have floated several schemes and canvassed the

general public by introducing investment plan. Accordingly they floated

the scheme-I, for the deposit of Rs.1,50,000/- wherein, the company will

supply 6 Emu birds, construct sheds at their costs, provide feeds, medical

check ups and free medicines and the depositors were assured to be given

a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month for 24 months and a sum of Rs.20,000/-

per annum as bonus and also assured to return the deposit amount after

Page 12 of 48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/07/2025 06:02:45 pm )

Crl.A.No.21 of 2023 etc.,

the maturity period. Under the Scheme -II viz., VIP Scheme, for the

deposit of Rs.1,50,000/- they will allot six Emu birds to the depositor and

the company will maintain the birds in their Emu farms and the

depositors were assured to be given a sum of Rs.7,000/- per month for 24

months and a sum of Rs.30,000/- per annum as bonus and also assured to

return the deposit amount after the maturity period.

4.2.Accordingly, they had collected money to the tune of

Rs.7,61,90,300/- from 385 depositors and thereafter, they failed to return

any profit and also failed to return the deposits. On receipt of the several

complaints from the depositors the respondent registered the FIR in

Crime No.2 of 2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B,

406, 420 of IPC and Section 2 of the TNPID Act. After completion of

investigation, the respondent filed final report and the same was taken

cognizance by the trial Court in C.C.No.29 of 2012.

4.3.In order to bring the charges to home, the prosecution had

examined P.W.1 to Ex.P.233 and marked documents in Ex.P.1 to

Ex.P.1094. On the side of the accused, they examined D.W.1 and marked

documents in Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.5. On perusal of the oral and documentary

Page 13 of 48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/07/2025 06:02:45 pm )

Crl.A.No.21 of 2023 etc.,

evidences, the trial Court acquitted the accused 3 & 4 and convicted the

accused 1 & 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 420 & 406 of

IPC and Section 5 of the TNPID Act and sentenced as follows :-

S.No.Conviction Sentence

1 Section 420 of IPC

(385 counts)

to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a

period of seven (7) years and to pay fine of

Rs.35,000/- for each counts, in default to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for further

period of one and half (1½) years.

2Section 406 of IPC

(385 counts)

to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a

period of three (3) years and to pay fine of

Rs.30,000/- for each counts, in default to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for further

period of nine months.

3Section 5 of

TNPID Act (385

counts)

to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a

period of ten (10) years and to pay fine of

Rs.35,000/- for each counts, in default to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for further

period of two (2) years.

Further the first accused company was sentenced to pay fine of

Rs.35,000/- for each counts in total Rs.4,04,25,000/- for three offences

punishable under Sections 420 & 406 of IPC and Section 5 of TNPID

Act and A2 was sentenced to pay the said fine amount on behalf of A1,

in default to undergo further two years rigorous imprisonment.

Aggrieved by the same, the present appeals.

Page 14 of 48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/07/2025 06:02:45 pm )

Crl.A.No.21 of 2023 etc.,

Crl.A.No.538 of 2025 :-

5.This Criminal Appeal has been preferred as against the

judgment dated 29.01.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, Special

Court under TNPID Act, Coimbatore, in C.C.No.16 of 2012, thereby

convicting the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 420

& 406 of IPC and Section 5 of the TNPID Act.

5.1.There are totally five accused in which, the first accused was

the company and the second accused was the Managing Director of the

first accused company. The accused 4 & 5 were the Manager and Chief

Executive officer of the first accused company. The case of the

prosecution was that during the year 2010-12, all the accused conspired

together with common intention and canvassed the general public by

floating two schemes of Emu birds rearing and had collected huge sum

from the general public. As per scheme-I, for the deposit of Rs.1,50,000/-

the company will supply six Emu birds, construct sheds at their costs,

provide feeds, medical check ups and free medicines and the depositors

were assured to be given a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month for 24 months

and a sum of Rs.20,000/- per annum as bonus and also assured to return

the deposit after the maturity period. Under Scheme- II viz., VIP Scheme,

Page 15 of 48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/07/2025 06:02:45 pm )

Crl.A.No.21 of 2023 etc.,

for the deposit of Rs.1,50,000/- the company will allot six Emu birds to

the depositor and the company will maintain the birds in their emu farms

itself and the depositors were assured to be given Rs.7,000/- per month

for 24 months and assured to give Rs.30,000/- per annum as bonus and

assured to return the deposit after the maturity period of two years.

5.2.Accordingly, they had collected money to the tune of

Rs.19,02,22,336/- from 1087 depositors and thereafter, they failed to pay

any amount and also failed to return the deposit amount thereby they had

dishonestly misappropriated the deposits and converted the deposits for

their own use. On receipt of the several complaints from the depositors,

the respondent registered the FIR in Crime No.2 of 2012 for the offences

punishable under Sections 120-B, 406 & 420 of IPC and Section 5 of the

TNPID Act. After completion of investigation, they filed final report and

the same was taken cognizance by the trial Court in C.C.No.16 of 2012.

5.3.In order to bring the charges to home, the prosecution had

examined P.W.1 to P.W.278 and marked documents in Ex.P.1 to

Ex.P.1897. On the side of the accused, they examined D.W.1 and the

Court marked document in Ex.C.1. On perusal of oral and documentary

Page 16 of 48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/07/2025 06:02:45 pm )

Crl.A.No.21 of 2023 etc.,

evidences, the trial Court acquitted A3 to A5 and found guilty of the first

and second accused for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406

of IPC and Section 5 of the TNPID Act and sentenced them as follows :-

S.No.Conviction Sentence

1 Section 420 of IPC

(1312 counts)

to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a

period of seven (7) years and to pay fine of

Rs.25,000/- for each counts, in default to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for further

period of one and half (1½) years.

2Section 406 of IPC

(1312 counts)

to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a

period of three (3) years and to pay fine of

Rs.20,000/- for each counts, in default to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for further

period of nine months.

3Section 5 of

TNPID Act (1312

counts)

to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a

period of ten (10) years and to pay fine of

Rs.25,000/- for each counts, in default to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for further

period of two (2) years.

Further the first accused company was sentenced to pay fine of

Rs.25,000/- for each counts in total Rs.9,84,00,000/- for the offences

punishable under Sections 420 & 406 of IPC and Section 5 of TNPID

Act and A2 was sentenced to pay the said fine amount on behalf of A1,

in default to undergo further two years rigorous imprisonment.

Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal.

Page 17 of 48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/07/2025 06:02:45 pm )

Crl.A.No.21 of 2023 etc.,

COUNSELS FOR APPELLANTS' SUBMISSIONS:-

6.The learned counsel appearing for the appellants in

Crl.A.Nos.21, 22 & 423 of 2023 and 538 & 623 of 2025 submitted that

the appellant was the Managing Director of the first accused company,

who is arrayed as A2 in all the crimes. Though five different cases were

registered in four districts by the respective respondents, all the cases are

one and the same. In all the cases, the appellant was alleged that he along

with other accused persons conspired together with common intention

floated several schemes and collected huge amount from the general

public. They assured the depositors that they would pay bonus and other

profits monthly and after maturity entire deposits will be returned with

bonus. Further in all the cases, the schemes which were allegedly floated

by the appellant were one and the same. Under the schemes, the general

public from four different districts deposited the amount. Therefore, the

registration of five cases itself is unwarranted and the respondents should

have registered only one FIR. Now the appellant is facing five conviction

for the very same set of allegations imposed by the same Court. In fact,

the period of crime in all fourth district were one and the same and

schemes allegedly floated by the accused were also one and the same. In

Page 18 of 48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/07/2025 06:02:45 pm )

Crl.A.No.21 of 2023 etc.,

two districts the first accused company is differ and it is none other than

sister concerned of other financial company.

6.1.He further submitted that there are totally ten cases

registered as against the appellant for the same course of transactions that

took place between the year 2010-2012. Apart from the present five

cases, another five cases are pending for trial. Out of the five cases, three

cases were registered as against M/s. Susi Emu Farms (India) Private

Limited and one case was registered as against M/s.Susi Land Promoters

Private Limited and one case was registered as against M/s.G1 Emu's

Zone India Private Limited. However, the prosecution registered ten

separate cases for the very same course of transactions. It is illegal and

violation of principles of double jeopardy which is envisaged under

Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, no person shall

be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once. In this

regard, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of

India reported in (2022) 14 SCC 323 in the case of T.P.Gopalakrishnan

Vs. State of Kerala which held that Section 300 of Cr.P.C., prohibits a

person from being tried for the same offence twice and any other offence

on the same facts.

Page 19 of 48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/07/2025 06:02:45 pm )

Crl.A.No.21 of 2023 etc.,

6.2.He further submitted that the prosecution failed to

consolidate all the witnesses together and subjected the appellant for

several trials across different districts for the very same set of

transactions. It led to multiple convictions for essentially the same

offence, which is not only procedurally improper but also a violation of

legal principles, rendering such repeated convictions unlawful and

contrary to the established norms of criminal jurisprudence.

6.3.He further submitted that in all the ten cases, the alleged

default amount is Rs.134,87,97,300/-. So far, the competent authority had

attached the appellants properties that are worth more than

Rs.22,20,00,000/- and seized liquid cash to the tune of Rs.10,00,00,000/-

Apart from that, several properties were attached and the same are

pending for auction sale. Further, insofar as the five convicted cases, the

total default amount is Rs.30,92,64,736/-. The total fine amount imposed

comes to the tune of Rs.35,00,00,000/-. Therefore, including the

deposited amount and the property which were sold out along with the

liquid cash recovered is now more than the defaulted amount, which is at

the hands of the competent authority and as Court deposits. Therefore,

Page 20 of 48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/07/2025 06:02:45 pm )

Crl.A.No.21 of 2023 etc.,

the depositors can very well be settled from the amount that is very much

available with the competent authority and the Court and since it is a

compoundable offence, it can be compounded by payment of the entire

amount to the depositors.

6.4.He also submitted that all the cases had arisen out of the

same set of allegations but by different judgments. The appellant was

convicted and therefore, the sentence cannot run consecutively and it

shall be run concurrently as contemplated under Section 427 of Cr.P.C. It

deals that when a person is already undergoing a sentence of

imprisonment for life and again sentenced on a subsequent conviction to

imprisonment for a term or imprisonment for life, the subsequent

sentence shall run concurrently with the previous sentence. It provides

that such imprisonment or imprisonment for life shall commence at the

expiration of the imprisonment to which he has been previously

sentenced, unless the Court directs that the subsequent sentence shall run

concurrently with such previous sentence. In support of his contention,

he relied upon the following judgments :-

(i) (2022) 14 SCC 323 – T.P.Gopalakrishnan Vs. State of Kerala

(ii) 2009 (3) MWN (Cr.) 32 – Prasannadevi Vs. State of Tamil

Nadu

Page 21 of 48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/07/2025 06:02:45 pm )

Crl.A.No.21 of 2023 etc.,

7.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant in

Crl.A.No.133 of 2023 submitted that the appellant is arrayed as A3 in

C.C.No.1 of 2013 and he was an employee and paid servant of the first

accused company. The first accused company was run by its Managing

Director viz., the second accused. The appellant was working as an

employee on monthly salary as per the direction of the second accused

and hence, vicarious liability cannot be invoked as against the employee

of the company. There were two bank accounts in the name of the first

accused company viz., G1 Emus Export India Private Limited and G1

Emus Zone India Private Limited. Both the accounts were frozen by the

government authority by way of Government orders. The Competent

authority also filed an application to absolute the said attachment.

Accordingly, the sum of Rs.29,98,876/- is very much available with the

government authority from 12.03.2013 and it might multiple by two or

three times.

7.1.In this case, there were 37 depositors and total default

amount is Rs.1,02,07,500/-. Already the second accused had settled 12

depositors and the remaining 25 depositors are to be settled to the tune of

Page 22 of 48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/07/2025 06:02:45 pm )

Crl.A.No.21 of 2023 etc.,

Rs.63,74,000/- and sufficient money is very much available with the

competent authority and as such the conviction against the appellant

cannot be sustained and it is liable to be set aside.

8.The learned counsel appearing for the Crl.A.No.317 of 2023

submitted that the appellants are arrayed as A3 to A5 and they had

nothing to do with the offence committed by A1 & A2. The first accused

was the company and the second accused was the Managing Director of

the first accused. All the appellants herein were the employee of the first

accused company and they were engaged by the second accused who was

the Managing Director of the first accused company. Though they were

actively involved in the activities of the first accused company, they had

acted only as employees. Even according to the case of the prosecution,

no amount was deposited into their personal accounts. Proper receipts

had been issued for the amount collected by the appellants in the name of

the first accused company and no amount was directly collected by them

or was deposited into their personal accounts.

8.1.He further submitted that there were 45 depositors in which

P.W.1-7, 10,14,16,19,24-29 and 37 have already been settled by the

Page 23 of 48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/07/2025 06:02:45 pm )

Crl.A.No.21 of 2023 etc.,

second accused. Therefore, the appellants had no role to play in respect

of canvassing the general public and in floating of the schemes.

Therefore, the appellants being the employees of the first accused, cannot

be held liable to be punished on the ground of vicarious liability. Further

no offence is made out under Section 420 of IPC as against the

appellants. They never induced the general public to deposit any amount.

Admittedly, the schemes were floated by the first accused company by

the second accused and canvassing the general public to deposit money

under the schemes.

RESPONDENT'S SUBMISSION:-

9.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for all

the respondents submitted that the second accused in all the cases was

the mastermind behind the crimes. He floated various schemes under the

name of the first accused company in which, he was the Managing

Director, to cheat the general public in four Districts such as Erode,

Coimbatore, Salem and Namakkal. There were different companies with

different types of schemes. In fact, they also floated the said schemes on

different dates in different districts. Therefore, the respondents on receipt

of the complaints from the depositors from each districts that too on

Page 24 of 48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/07/2025 06:02:45 pm )

Crl.A.No.21 of 2023 etc.,

different cause of action registered separate FIRs and the cases are in no

way connected to one another. Though the modus operandi of the crime

may be one and the same in all the cases but the accused had floated

different schemes in different companys' names that too on different

dates. Therefore, it cannot be said that for the same set of allegations,

several FIRs have been registered. Hence the principle of double

jeopardy cannot be applicable to the cases on hand and there is no

violation of Section 300 of Cr.P.C., or Article 20(2) of the Constitution

of India.

9.1.He further submitted that though nearly Rs.36,00,00,000/- of

money is available with the competent authority, there are totally ten

cases pending as against the appellants in four districts. In each district,

there are different depositors. Therefore, the amount which is lying with

the competent authority cannot be disbursed only with respect to the

convicted cases. The huge deposits were collected by the very same

appellants in the pending trial cases as well. Therefore, the amount which

is lying with the competent authority can be disbursed proportionately to

all the depositors. Hence, compounding of the offence for the convicted

cases alone cannot be possible.

Page 25 of 48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/07/2025 06:02:45 pm )

Crl.A.No.21 of 2023 etc.,

9.2.He also submitted that insofar as the benefits under Section

427 of Cr.P.C., is concerned, it depends upon whether the facts forming

the basis of prosecution arise out of a single transaction or transactions

that are akin to each other. In the cases on hand, the second accused had

collected huge deposits from canvassing the general public under

different schemes under different entities. Therefore, the appellants are

not entitled for any benefits as contemplated under Section 427 of

Cr.P.C. In support of his contention he relied upon the following

judgments:-

(i) (2013) 7 SCC 211 – V.K.Bansal Vs. State of Haryana and

another

(ii) (2022) 12 SCC 426 – Mohd Zahid Vs. State through NCB

10.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and

perused the materials placed before this Court.

FINDINGS :-

11.On the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing

for the appellants, the following issues have arisen for consideration :-

Page 26 of 48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/07/2025 06:02:45 pm )

Crl.A.No.21 of 2023 etc.,

(i) Whether the registration of several cases for the very same set

of allegations is in violation of the provisions under Section 300 of

Cr.P.C., and Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India?

(ii) Whether the second accused in all the cases is entitled for the

benefits under Section 427 of Cr.P.C?

(iii) Whether the offences can be compounded by settling the

amount by the accused?

(iv) Whether the appellant in Crl.A.Nos.133 of 2023 and 317 of

2023 are the employees of the first accused and if so, whether they are

liable to be punishable for the offence committed by the company?

(v) Whether the prosecution proved the charges against all the

accused?

(i) Violation under Section 300 of Cr.P.C., and Article 20(2) of the

Constitution of India:-

12.There were totally five cases, in which the appellants were

convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B r/w. 420,

406, 420 of IPC and Section 5 of the TNPID Act, by the same Court. The

details of the cases, default amount and punishment are as follows :-

Page 27 of 48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/07/2025 06:02:45 pm )

Crl.A.No.21 of 2023 etc.,

Sl.

No.

C.C. Nos &

Crime Nos.

Date of

conviction

Convic-

tion

details

Punish

-ment

Default

amount

(in Rs.)

Crimina

l Appeal

Nos.

1.16 of 2012

(5 accused)

(Crime No.2

of 2012 –

EOW-II,

Coimbatore)

29.01.2015A1 & A2

convicte

d

A3 to A5

acquitted

S.420

of IPC

– 7

years

S.406

IPC – 3

years

S.5 of

TNPID

Act –

10

years

19,02,22,3

36/-

(1087

depositors

)

538 of

2025 by

A1 & A2

2.28 of 2012

(9 accused)

(Crime No.1

of 2012 –

EOW-II,

Namakkal)

22.09.2021A1 & A2

convicte

d

A3 to A9

acquitted

S.120

r/w 420

of IPC

– 7

years

S.420

IPC – 7

years

S. 5 of

TNPID

Act –

10

years

2,39,15,60

0/-

(96

depositors

)

21 of

2023

by A2

3.29 of 2012

(4 accused)

(Crime No.2

of 2012 –

EOW-II,

Salem)

06.06.2025A1 & A2

convicte

d

A3 & A4

acquitted

S.420

of IPC

– 7

years

S.406

IPC – 3

years

S.5 of

TNPID

7,61,09,30

0/-

(385

depositors

)

538 of

2025 by

A1 & A2

Page 28 of 48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/07/2025 06:02:45 pm )

Crl.A.No.21 of 2023 etc.,

Sl.

No.

C.C. Nos &

Crime Nos.

Date of

conviction

Convic-

tion

details

Punish

-ment

Default

amount

(in Rs.)

Crimina

l Appeal

Nos.

Act –

10

years

4.1 of 2013

(4 accused)

(Crime

No.14 of

2012 –

EOW-II,

Erode)

30.11.2021A1 to A3

convicte

d

A4

acquitted

S.120

r/w 420

of IPC

– 7

years

S.420

IPC – 7

years

S. 5 of

TNPID

Act –

10

years

1,02,07,50

0/-

(36

depositors

)

22 of

2023 by

A2

133 of

2023 by

A3

5.3 of 2013

(5 accused)

(Crime

No.20 of

2012 –

EOW-II,

Erode)

17.03.2023A1 to A5

convicte

d

S.120

r/w 420

of IPC

– 7

years

S.420

IPC – 7

years

S. 5 of

TNPID

Act –

10

years

88,10,000

/-

(45

depositors

)

423 of

2023 by

A2

317 of

2023 by

A3 to A5

13.In all the cases, there are three entities arrayed as first

accused. In Crime No.1 of 2012 on the file of the Economic Offences

Page 29 of 48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/07/2025 06:02:45 pm )

Crl.A.No.21 of 2023 etc.,

Wing-II, Namakkal and in Crime No.2 of 2012 on the file of the

Economic Offences Wing-II, Coimbatore and in Crime No.2 of 2012 on

the file of the Economic Offences Wing-II, Salem, the first accused is

M/s.Susi Emu Firms India Private Limited. In Crime No.14 of 2012, on

the file of the Economic Offences Wing-II, Erode, the first accused is

M/s.G1 Emu's Zone India Private Limited. In Crime No.20 of 2012 on

the file of the Economic Offences Wing-II, Erode, the first accused is

M/s. Susi Land Promoters Private Limited. Accordingly there are three

entities in all five cases in different places such as Erode, Coimbatore,

Salem & Namakkal Districts.

14.Further, in all the cases, they had floated different schemes.

Their modus operandi is one and the same in all the crimes and under the

various schemes, they had canvassed the general public with wide

publicity via dailies and vernacular magazines to induce the general

public to deposit, thereby collecting huge money from various

depositors. However, they committed default to repay the deposit amount

and also failed to provide the benefits as assured by them. In all the

cases, almost all the depositors were examined and the fixed deposit

receipts were marked as exhibits. The victims also produced agreements

Page 30 of 48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/07/2025 06:02:45 pm )

Crl.A.No.21 of 2023 etc.,

which were entered between the victims and the first accused company

thereby agreeing to pay the incentives and other benefits under the

scheme. Therefore, the prosecution proved all the charges and the trial

Court rightly found A1 and A2 guilty in all the cases and convicted them.

Therefore, it is not in violation of procedure as contemplated under

Section 300 of Cr.P.C., and there is absolutely no violation of Article 20

of the Constitution of India.

15.The learned counsel appearing for the appellants/A1&A2 in

all the cases relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of

India reported in (2022) 14 SCC 323 in the case of T.P.Gopalakrishnan

Vs. State of Kerala, which held as follows :-

“28. Under clause (2) of Article 20, no person shall

be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than

once. Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India incorporates

within its scope, the plea of autrefois convict, meaning,

previously convicted as known to British jurisprudence, or

the plea of double jeopardy known to the American

Constitution. However, the said concepts are circumscribed

in Article 20(2) which provides that there should be not only

a prosecution but also punishment in the first instance in

order to operate as a bar to a second prosecution and

Page 31 of 48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/07/2025 06:02:45 pm )

Crl.A.No.21 of 2023 etc.,

punishment for the same offence. On a plain reading the of

sub clause (2) of Article 20, it is clear that the said provision

bars a second prosecution only where the accused has been

both prosecuted and punished for the same offence

previously vide S.A. Venkataraman vs. Union of India AIR

1954 SC 375 (“S.A. Venkataraman”). But this clause does

not bar subsequent trial if the ingredients of the offences in

the previous and subsequent trials are distinct. In Maqbool

Hussain vs. State of Bombay AIR 1953 SC 325, this Court

has held that clause(2) is not applicable unless the person

has been both prosecuted and punished.

29. There are three conditions for the application of

the clause. Firstly, there must have been previous

proceeding before a court of law or a judicial tribunal of

competent jurisdiction in which the person must have been

prosecuted. The said prosecution must be valid and not null

and void or abortive. Secondly, the conviction or acquittal

in the previous proceeding must be in force at the time of the

second proceeding in relation to the same offence and same

set of facts, for which he was prosecuted and punished in the

first proceeding. Thirdly, the subsequent proceeding must be

a fresh proceeding, where he is, for the second time, sought

to be prosecuted and punished for the same offence and

same set of facts. In other words, the clause has no

application when the subsequent proceeding is a mere

continuation of the previous proceeding, for example, where

Page 32 of 48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/07/2025 06:02:45 pm )

Crl.A.No.21 of 2023 etc.,

an appeal arises out of such acquittal or conviction. In

order to sustain a plea of double jeopardy, it must be shown

that all the aforesaid conditions of this clause are satisfied,

vide S.A. Venkataraman.”

Thus it is clear that the above conditions are to be fulfilled to attract the

violation of procedure under Section 300 of Cr.P.C., and Article 20 of

the Constitution of India.

16.The same offence means where the offences are not distinct

and the ingredients of the offences are identical. Two distinct offences

can be made up of different ingredients and the embargo under Article 20

of the constitution of India has no application, though the offences have

some overlapping features. Therefore, the crucial requirement of Article

20 is that the offences are the same and identical in all respects. As stated

supra, there were three entities and they had collected huge deposits from

general public under different schemes. The schemes are different not

only in respect of benefits and but also with respect to the deposits and

its maturity. Therefore, the above judgment is not applicable to the case

on hand and hence, there is no violation of the procedure under Section

300 of Cr.P.C., and Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India.

Page 33 of 48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/07/2025 06:02:45 pm )

Crl.A.No.21 of 2023 etc.,

(ii) Benefit under Section 427 of Cr.P.C.:-

17.Insofar as the benefits under Section 427 of Cr.P.C., is

concerned, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor relied upon the

judgment reported in (2013) 7 SCC 211 in the case of V.K.Bansal Vs.

Stateof Haryana and another in which, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of

India held as follows :-

“13. There are also cases where the High Courts

have depending upon whether facts forming the basis of

prosecution arise out of a single transaction or transactions

that are akin to each other directed that the sentences

awarded should run concurrently. As for instance the High

Court of Allahabad has in Mulaim Singh v. State 1974 Crl.

L.J. 1397 directed the sentence to run concurrently since the

nature of the offence and the transactions thereto were akin

to each other. Suffice it to say that the discretion vested in

the Court for a direction in terms of Section 427 can and

ought to be exercised having regard to the nature of the

offence committed and the facts situation, in which the

question arises.

14. We may at this stage refer to the decision of this

Court in Mohd. Akhtar Hussain v. Assistant Collector of

Customs (1988) 4 SCC 183 in which this Court recognised

the basic rule of convictions arising out of a single

transaction justifying concurrent running of the sentences.

Page 34 of 48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/07/2025 06:02:45 pm )

Crl.A.No.21 of 2023 etc.,

The following passage is in this regard apposite:

“The basic rule of thumb over the years has been the

so called single transaction rule for concurrent sentences. If

a given transaction constitutes two offences under two

enactments generally, it is wrong to have consecutive

sentences. It is proper and legitimate to have concurrent

sentences. But this rule has no application if the transaction

relating to offences is not the same or the facts constituting

the two offences are quite different.

................

18. Applying the principle of single transaction

referred to above to the above fact situations we are of the

view that each one of the loan transactions/financial

arrangements was a separate and distinct transaction

between the complainant on the one hand and the

borrowing company/appellant on the other. If different

cheques which are subsequently dishonoured on

presentation, are issued by the borrowing company acting

through the appellant, the same could be said to be arising

out of a single loan transaction so as to justify a direction

for concurrent running of the sentences awarded in relation

to dishonour of cheques relevant to each such transaction.

That being so, the substantive sentence awarded to the

appellant in each case relevant to the transactions with

each company referred to above ought to run concurrently.

We, however, see no reason to extend that concession to

Page 35 of 48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/07/2025 06:02:45 pm )

Crl.A.No.21 of 2023 etc.,

transactions in which the borrowing company is different no

matter the appellant before us is the promoter/Director of

the said other companies also. Similarly we see no reason to

direct running of the sentence concurrently in the case filed

by the State Bank of Patiala against M/s Sabhyata Plastics

and M/s Rahul Plastics which transaction is also

independent of any loan or financial assistance between the

State Financial Corporation and the borrowing companies.

We make it clear that the direction regarding concurrent

running of sentence shall be limited to the substantive

sentence only. The sentence which the appellant has been

directed to undergo in default of payment of

fine/compensation shall not be affected by this direction. We

do so because the provisions of Section 427 of the Cr.P.C.

do not, in our opinion, permit a direction for the concurrent

running of the substantive sentences with sentences

awarded in default of payment of fine/compensation.”

18.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also relied upon

the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in (2022)

12 SCC 426 in the case of Mohd Zahid Vs. State through NCB which

held as follows :-

“19. Even otherwise as observed hereinabove under

Section 427 (1) of Cr.PC, the Court has the power and

Page 36 of 48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/07/2025 06:02:45 pm )

Crl.A.No.21 of 2023 etc.,

discretion to issue a direction that the subsequent sentence

to run concurrently with the previous sentence in that case

also, the discretion has to be exercised judiciously

depending upon the nature of offence or the offences

committed.

20.In the present case the appellant – accused has

been convicted for the offences under the NDPS Act. He has

been convicted in one case for recovery of 4 kg heroin and

sentenced to undergo 12 years RI and in another case there

is a recovery of 750 grams of heroin and considering the

Section 31 (ii) of the NDPS Act, he has been sentenced to

undergo 15 years RI.

21.No leniency should be shown to an accused who

is found to be guilty for the offence under the NDPS Act.

Those persons who are dealing in narcotic drugs are

instruments in causing death or in inflicting death blow to a

number of innocent young victims who are vulnerable. Such

accused causes deleterious effects and deadly impact on the

society. They are hazard to the society. Such organized

activities of clandestine smuggling of narcotic drugs and

psychotropic substances into this country and illegal

trafficking in such drugs and substances have a deadly

impact on the society as a whole. Therefore, while awarding

the sentence or punishment in case of NDPS Act, the interest

of the society as a whole is required to be taken into

consideration. Therefore, even while applying discretion

Page 37 of 48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/07/2025 06:02:45 pm )

Crl.A.No.21 of 2023 etc.,

under Section 427 of Cr.PC, the discretion shall not be in

favour of the accused who is found to be indulging in illegal

trafficking in the narcotic drugs and psychotropic

substances.”

Thus it is clear that the Court has the power to issue direction that the

subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with the previous sentence.

The said discretion has to be exercised judiciously depending upon the

nature of the offence or the offences committed.

19.It is relevant to extract the provision under Section 427 of

Cr.P.C., as follows :-

“427. Sentence on offender already sentenced for another

offence.

(1) When a person already undergoing a sentence of

imprisonment is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to

imprisonment or imprisonment for life, such imprisonment or

imprisonment for life shall commence at the expiration of the

imprisonment to which he has been previously sentenced, unless

the Court directs that the subsequent sentence shall run

concurrently with such previous sentence:

Provided that where a person who has been sentenced to

imprisonment by an order under section 122 in default of

furnishing security is, whilst undergoing such sentence,

sentenced to imprisonment for an offence committed prior to the

Page 38 of 48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/07/2025 06:02:45 pm )

Crl.A.No.21 of 2023 etc.,

making of such order, the latter sentence shall commence

immediately.

(2) When a person already undergoing a sentence of

imprisonment for life is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to

imprisonment for a term or imprisonment for life, the subsequent

sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence.”

Therefore on a fair reading of Section 427 of Cr.PC, when a person who

is already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is sentenced on a

subsequent conviction to imprisonment or imprisonment for life, such

imprisonment or imprisonment for life shall commence at the expiration

of the imprisonment to which he has been previously sentenced. Meaning

thereby the sentences in both the conviction shall run “consecutively”.

However, there is an exception to that the Court may direct the

subsequent sentence to run concurrently with such previous sentence. In

addition to this there is another exception under Sub-section (2) of

Section 427 of Cr.P.C. which states that, when a person already

undergoing a sentence of imprisonment for life is sentenced on a

subsequent conviction to imprisonment for a term or imprisonment for

life, the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous

sentence.

20.In the cases on hand, there were three entities arrayed as first

Page 39 of 48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/07/2025 06:02:45 pm )

Crl.A.No.21 of 2023 etc.,

accused. But the said entities were represented by the same person viz.,

the second accused in all the cases. Therefore, the sentence imposed on

the same entities represented by the second accused shall run

concurrently as contemplated under Section 427 of Cr.P.C. The

sentences imposed in C.C.Nos.16, 28 & 29 of 2012 on the file of the trial

Court against the accused 1 & 2 alone shall run concurrently. Insofar as

the fine imposed by the trial Court is concerned, it is separate and the

accused 1 & 2 are liable to pay the fine as imposed by the trial Court.

Insofar as the sentence imposed in C.C.No.1 of 2013 and C.C.No.3 of

2013, against the accused 1 & 2 is concerned, the same shall run

consecutively.

(iii) Compounding the offences:-

21.Insofar as the compounding of the offences is concerned, as

rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the

strength of the status reported submitted by the competent authority, the

accused 1 & 2 had involved totally in ten cases and they had collected

huge deposits in four districts under three different entities from several

depositors. The details of all the ten cases are as follows :-

Page 40 of 48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/07/2025 06:02:45 pm )

Crl.A.No.21 of 2023 etc.,

Sl.

No.

C.C. Nos. Crime Nos.Number of

depositors

Default

amount

(in Rs.)

Status

1.16 of

2012

2 of 2012 –

EOW-II,

Coimbatore

1087 19,02,22,336/

-

Convicted

2.28 of

2012

1 of 2012 –

EOW-II,

Namakkal

96 2,39,15,600/-Convicted

3.29 of

2012

2 of 2012 –

EOW-II,

Salem

385 7,61,09,300/-Convicted

4.1 of 201314 of 2012 –

EOW-II,

Erode

36 1,02,07,500/-Convicted

5.3 of 201320 of 2012 –

EOW-II,

Erode

45 88,10,000/-Convicted

6.10 of

2012

2 of 2012 –

EOW-II,

Erode

330594,94,64,954/

-

Pending

trial

7.18 of

2013

2 of 2012 –

EOW-II,

Virudhunagar

165 4,33,75,000/-Pending

trial

8.19 of

2013

1 of 2012 –

EOW-II,

Dindigul

292 8,67,25,000/-Pending

trial

9.36 of

2013

2 of 2012 –

EOW-II,

Thirunelveli

16 24,95,410/-Pending

trial

10.15 of

2013

4 of 2012 –

EOW-II,

96 1,67,84,500/-Pending

trial

Page 41 of 48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/07/2025 06:02:45 pm )

Crl.A.No.21 of 2023 etc.,

Sl.

No.

C.C. Nos. Crime Nos.Number of

depositors

Default

amount

(in Rs.)

Status

Trichy

Therefore, the amount which is now available with the competent

authority cannot be disbursed in favour of the depositors in respect of the

convicted cases alone. It shall be disbursed to all the depositors in all the

ten cases proportionately, in accordance with law. Hence, compounding

the offence in the convicted cases alone cannot be done and the

submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants to compound

the offence cannot be considered with available funds in the credit of

competent authority.

(iv) Vicarious liability on the employees:-

22.Insofar as the appellants in Crl.A.No.133 of 2023 & 317 of

2023 are concerned, even according to the case of the prosecution, they

were acting as Manager and other staff in the first accused company.

Further admittedly, they were neither Director of the first accused

company nor they collected any amount from the depositors in their

personal capacity. Though they had signed in the fixed deposit receipts,

they had signed only on behalf of the first accused company and all the

Page 42 of 48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/07/2025 06:02:45 pm )

Crl.A.No.21 of 2023 etc.,

amount was deposited into the account of the first accused company. No

single penny was deposited into their personal account. They were only

working under the first accused company on a monthly salary basis.

23.In this regard, it is relevant to extract the provision under

Section 5 of the TNPID Act, as follows :-

“5. Default in repayment of deposits and interest

honouring the commitment. - Notwithstanding anything

contained in Chapter II, where any Financial Establishment

defaults the return of the deposit or defaults the payment of

interest on the deposit, or fails to return in any kind, or fails

to render service for which the deposit has been made, every

person responsible for the management of the affairs of the

Financial Establishment shall be punished with

imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years and

with fine which may extend to one lakh of rupees and such

Financial Establishment is also liable for a fine which may

extend to one lakh of rupees.”

Therefore in order to invoke the above provision, one should shoulder

the responsibility of managing the affairs of the financial firm or

company. A person who merely manages the affairs of a firm or a

company viz., Clerks, Accountants, Office Assistants, who are just paid

servants would not be responsible for the management in the sense that

Page 43 of 48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/07/2025 06:02:45 pm )

Crl.A.No.21 of 2023 etc.,

they are not answerable to the claim made against the financial firm. In

other words, a person, who simply manages the affairs of a firm, cannot

be said to have taken the responsibility of answering the allegation of

mis-management of the affairs of the firm. They have been given a role

to manage the affairs of the company but they are not responsible for the

mis-management of the company when the company is liable for any

default. Therefore, all the persons who manage the affairs of the

company or a financial institution need not necessarily be responsible for

the management of the affairs of the financial institution.

24.The main ingredient which is required under Section 5 of the

TNPID Act is that the person charged should have been responsible for

the management of the affairs of the institutions. The persons who

simply manages the affairs of the financial institution as a paid servant

will fall out the ambit and scope of the provision under Section 5 of the

TNPID Act. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove the charges

against the appellant and this Court finds infirmity on the conviction and

sentence imposed on the appellants in Crl.A.Nos.133 & 317 of 2023 and

hence, the conviction and sentence cannot be sustained and is liable to be

set aside.

Page 44 of 48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/07/2025 06:02:45 pm )

Crl.A.No.21 of 2023 etc.,

25.In the result, this Court is inclined to pass the following

orders :-

(I) The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants in

Crl.A.Nos. 133 & 317 of 2023 by the judgment dated 30.11.2021 &

17.03.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge, Special Court under

TNPID Act, Coimbatore in C.C.Nos.1 and 3 of 2013 are hereby set aside.

The appellants in Crl.A.Nos. 133 & 317 of 2023 are hereby acquitted

from the charges under Sections 120 r/w.420, 420 of IPC and Section 5

of the TNPID Act. Fine amount, if any paid, shall be refunded to them

forthwith. Bail bonds, if any executed, shall stand cancelled.

(II) The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants in

Crl.A.Nos.21 of 2023 and 538 & 623 of 2025 by and judgments dated

22.09.2021, 29.01.2025 & 06.06.2025 passed by the learned Special

Judge, Special Court under TNPID Act, Coimbatore in C.C.Nos.28, 16 &

29 of 2012 respectively, are hereby confirmed. The fine amount imposed

by the trial Court against the accused is also confirmed. However, the

sentence imposed on the second accused in Crl.A.Nos.21 of 2023 and

538 & 623 of 2025 alone shall run concurrently.

(III) The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants in

Page 45 of 48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/07/2025 06:02:45 pm )

Crl.A.No.21 of 2023 etc.,

Crl.A.Nos.22 & 423 of 2023 by the judgment dated 30.11.2021 &

17.03.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge, Special Court under

TNPID Act, Coimbatore in C.C.Nos.1 and 3 of 2013 are hereby

confirmed and the sentence shall run consecutively.

26.Accordingly, the Criminal Appeals in Crl.A.Nos.133 & 317

of 2023 stand allowed; the Criminal Appeals in Crl.A.Nos.21 of 2023 &

538 & 623 of 2025 stand partly allowed and Criminal Appeals in

Crl.A.Nos.22 & 423 of 2023 stand dismissed.

25.07.2025

Index : Yes/No

Neutral citation: Yes/No

Speaking/non-speaking order

rts

Page 46 of 48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/07/2025 06:02:45 pm )

Crl.A.No.21 of 2023 etc.,

To

1. The Special Judge,

Special Court under TNPID Act,

Coimbatore.

2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,

Economic Offences Wing-II,

Namakkal District.

3. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,

Economic Offences Wing-II,

Salem District.

4. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,

Economic Offences Wing-II,

Erode District.

5. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,

Economic Offences Wing-II,

Coimbatore District.

6. The Public Prosecutor,

Madras High Court,

Chennai.

Page 47 of 48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/07/2025 06:02:45 pm )

Crl.A.No.21 of 2023 etc.,

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

rts

Pre-delivery judgement in

Crl.A.Nos.21, 22, 133, 317,

423 of 2023 and 538 & 623 of 2025

25.07.2025

Page 48 of 48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/07/2025 06:02:45 pm )