AB 1452/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE I.A. ANSARI This is an application, made under Section 438 Cr.P.C., seeking pre-arrest bail by the accused-petitioner, namely, Sri Mihir Kumar Biswas, in connection with No onmati Police Station Case No.153/2011 under Sections 120(B)/406/420 IPC read w ith Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Bannin g) Act, 1978. Perused the above application and materials on record. Perused also the relevant case diary. Heard Mr. K. Nath, learned counsel, for the petitioner, and Mr. Z. Kamar , learned Public Prosecutor, Assam. Perusal of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978, (i n short, ’the Act of 1978’), shows that contravention of the provisions of Sect ion 3 is an offence. As contravention of the provisions of Section 3 is an offen ce, Section 3 is reproduced below: 3. Banning of prize chit and money circulation schemes or enrolment as members or participation therein. No person shall promote or conduct any prize chit or m oney circulation scheme, or enroll as a member to any such chit or scheme, or pa rticipate in it otherwise, or receive or remit any money in pursuance of such ch it or scheme. From a bare reading of Section 3, what transpires is that no person shall promot e or conduct any prize chit or money circulation scheme, or enroll as a member t o any such chit or scheme, or participate in it otherwise, or receive or remit a ny money in pursuance of such chit or scheme. Clearly, therefore, if a person ge ts himself enrolled as a member of any chit fund or scheme or, otherwise, partic ipate in such a scheme or receives or remits any money in pursuance of such chit fund or scheme, he commits an offence. In the present case, the perusal of the relevant case diary reveals that the pet itioner had fully participated in the scheme, which falls within the ambit of th e Act of 1978, and he enrolled others also as members of the scheme. In such cir cumstances, particularly, when a large number of persons have been made members to the scheme, effective interrogation of the petitioner is imperative. As far as the Reserve Bank of India (in short, ’the RBI’) is concerned, it is cl ear that since the scheme, in question, is, in itself, violative of law, the que stion of the RBI approving such a scheme does not arise at all. In the case at h and, the scheme of chit fund has not, therefore, been approved by the RBI. On considering the matter in its entirety, this Court is of the view that in the facts and attending circumstances of the present case, the petitioner cannot be given the benefit of pre-arrest bail. In the result and for the foregoing reasons, the prayer for pre-arrest bail, mad e by the petitioner, is hereby rejected. The interim directions for pre-arrest bail, passed, in this case, on 03.06.2011, in favour of the petitioner, shall accordingly stand vacated. The Bail Application shall accordingly stand disposed of.