IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2008 / 1ST SRAVANA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 4611 of 2008(F) --------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 14/07/2008 IN CRMP 5712/08 AND CRMP.5711/2008 of CHIEF JUDL.MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM CRIME NO.520/2008 OF KADAVANTHRA POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED : ----------------------------------- P. RAJINDRAN, S/O.KUNJAPPAN NAIR, 102 AREENA APARTMENTS, ELAMKULAM ROAD, KADAVANTHRA, (PRESENT ADDRESS FLAT NO.6, SPARTA PRESTIGE ARCOLIC APARTMENTS, NEAR FORUM SHOPPING HALL, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE) BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.) SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI SMT.SARITHA DAVID CHUNKATH RESPONDENTS : ---------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, RE. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KADAVANTHRA POLICE STATION. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/07/2008 ALONG WITH BA NO.4610 OF 2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING : K.HEMA, J. -------------------------------------- Bail Application No.4611 of 2008 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 409, 420, 463 and 477(A) IPC. On a complaint filed by the marketing executive, a crime was registered against petitioner who is the Managing Director of a company. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegations are made by an employee of the company who alleges that the salary was not paid to him by the company. He was a marketing executive and in the course of his duty, he was canvassing orders from various customers under a scheme. As per the scheme, the customers have to make the claim within a particular period. But, he did not explain to them that there was a particular time limit to claim the articles. Therefore, the customers did not claim the articles within the time and they lost the benefit under the scheme which was offered. So, the petitioner who was only an employee of the company cannot make any allegation of cheating against the company. Going by the ingredients of the BA No.4611/08 2 offence of cheating, none of the allegations made in the complaint will constitute offence, it is submitted. 4. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel for petitioner that the company has assets and if at all anybody has lost any money, company is prepared to pay the sum. But, there is no point in keeping the petitioner in jail any more. It is also submitted, in the light of the judgment reported in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Mir Basit Ali Khan and others (1971(2) Supreme Court Cases 96), the similar business involving money scheme is held to be not illegal. It is also submitted that any dispute between the business partners which gives rise to any loss to one of the partners cannot lay any foundation for the offence of cheating. Reliance was placed on the decision reported in Dalal V.R. and others vs. Yougendra Naranji Thakkar and another (2008(2) KLT 168 SC). The petitioner is in custody from 9.7.2008 onwards. The petitioner was questioned and no recovery is to be effected and hence, his detention is not required for the purpose of investigation, it is submitted. 5. This petition is strongly opposed. Learned public prosecutor submitted that crores of rupees were obtained by BA No.4611/08 3 petitioner from various persons and they were cheated and many complaints were filed against the petitioner. It is pointed out by learned public prosecutor that the allegation made by the defacto complainant is not in the capacity of a mere employee of the company. He himself was a victim of cheating since he had joined the scheme offered by the company and more than Rs.20,000/- was received by the company offering shares etc. He did not get either the share or the sarees as offered by the company as per the scheme. It is also submitted that the defacto complainant in this case is not the sole victim. Various crimes are also registered against the petitioner by other victims making allegations of similar nature. 6. Several persons were cheated by the petitioner by making false representations and effecting advertisements persuading the public to join the scheme and deliver huge amounts. Later, they lost the money in the transaction and also, they did not obtain the articles as offered by the company. It is also submitted that all the other crimes registered against the petitioner are under the investigation. The petitioner was doing a money chain business also and this is the second attempt in the same line. This crime is BA No.4611/08 4 under investigation. Various witnesses have to be questioned. Documents are also to be seized. In such circumstances, if the petitioner is released on bail, he, being highly influential, will influence or intimidate witnesses and destroy the evidence and this will interfere with the investigation, it is submitted. 7. On hearing both sides and on going through the relevant documents, it is clear that the complaint is filed not in the capacity of a mere employee. But, the complainant himself was an alleged victim of the scheme offered by the company just like the others. He has parted with money, on his being deceived by the alleged false representations made by the petitioner. It is also clear that the investigation is at the initial stage and many witnesses have to be questioned and in case, the petitioner is released on bail, it is likely that it will interfere with the investigation. Hence, I am not satisfied that it will be just and proper to release the petitioner on bail at this stage of investigation. The petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE csl