Central Economic Intelligence ... vs The State Of Delhi & Ors.
2010 Latest Caselaw 4622 Del

                * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                                      Date of Reserve: August 13, 2010
                                                     Date of Order: 30th September, 2010
+ Crl.M.C.No. 2699/2009
%                                                                      30.09.2010

        Central Economic Intelligence Bureau               ... Petitioner
                          Through: Ms. Satya Siddiqui, Mr. Dalip Singh &
                          Ms. S.K.Mishra, Advocates

                Versus


        The State of Delhi & Ors.                              ... Respondents
                           Through: Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP for the State
                           Mr. Suhail Dutt, Mr. Rai S. Mittal &
                           Mr. Rayner Vishal Dass, Advocates for R-2


JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the reporter or not?

3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?

JUDGMENT

By this petition, the petitioner has assailed an order dated 21 st

February, 2009 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the

revision petition filed by the petitioner against an order of learned MM

accepting the closure report of the police wherein it was stated by police that

no offence under Section 409/420/120-B read with Section 3, 4 & 5 of The

Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978, (in short

PCMCS Act) was made out.

2. The petitioner had filed a complaint against respondents no. 2-9

alleging therein that the respondents were indulging into cheating people by

floating a scheme of money circulation. It was stated that respondents, in the

guise of creating direct distribution network of its product which included

weightloss drugs has been found indulging into violation of provisions of

Section 3, 4 & 5 of PCMCS Act. An investigation into these allegations was

conducted by the police and after conducting investigation, police filed a

closure report. Objections against this were filed by the petitioner. The

learned Metropolitan Magistrate however, observed that the law regarding

money circulation has been laid down by Supreme Court in State of West

Bengal & Ors. v. Swapan Kumar Guha & Ors. (1982) 1 SCC 561 and in view

of this judgment of Supreme Court, the case of the respondents/accused was

not covered under Section 3, 4 & 5 of PCMCS Act and police rightly filed the

closure report. In revision the learned Sessions Judge concurred with the view

of learned MM and dismissed the revision petition.

3. The complainant submitted that on analyzing the business model and

activities of the company, the marketing strategy was only a camouflage and

the product which actually costed very small amount was being marketed at a

very high value and each customer for this weight loss drug, if enrolled more

customers, was to get commission on the weight loss drug and the amount of

commission was so high that the entire scheme was nothing but a money

circulation scheme.

4. It is settled law that provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C. i.e.

inherent powers vested in the High Court are to be used to prevent the abuse

of process of court or to otherwise secure the ends of justice. But this

provision does not confer unlimited jurisdiction on the High Court. This

provision cannot be used as a second revision petition against the order of the

subordinate court. The inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction

on High Court and these powers are to be used sparingly with circumspection

and in rarest of rare cases.

5. In the present case the learned MM had considered the entire

scheme and after considering the entire scheme in the light of the judgment of

Supreme Court had come to the conclusion that the police had rightly filed a

closure report. The learned MM was within his jurisdiction to see whether the

investigation done by police was in right direction or not and whether an

offence had prima facie been committed or not. If there were good grounds

with the learned MM to accept the closure report and to form an opinion that

the investigation was done in right directions and there was no reason to

reject the closure report, this Court cannot in the garb of Section 482 Cr.P.C.

substitute its own opinion in place of opinion of the learned MM and act as an

Appellate Court.

6. I consider that the learned MM rightly accepted the closure

report and the learned ASJ rightly dismissed the revision petition. I find no

reason to interfere with the order of the Courts below. The petition is hereby

dismissed.

September 30, 2010                            SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.
vn