Madras High Court
State Represented By vs K.Mohanraj on 22 August, 2023
Crl.O.P.No.30022 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 22.08.2023
Croam:
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
Crl.O.P.No.30022 of 2022
State represented by
Inspector of Police,
SPE, CBI, EOW, Chennai
in RC.12(E)/2011, CBI/EOW .. Petitioner/Complainant
/versus/
1.K.Mohanraj
2.K.Kathiravan(died)
3.Kamalavalli
4.M/s Pazee Forex
Trading Pvt.Ltd.,
represented by K.Mohanraj(A-1)
K.Kathiravan(A-2) and Kamalavali(A-3)
5.M/s Pazee Trading Inc.
Represented by K.Mohanraj(A-1)
K.Kathiravan(A-2) and Kamalavali(A-3)
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.30022 of 2022
6.M/s Pazee Marketing Company,
represented by K.Mohanraj(A-1),
K.Kathiravan(A-2) and Kamalavali(A-3) ..Respondents/Accused
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.., praying to quash/expunge the observations made by the learned Trial
Court in para No.45, Para No.108 and 109 of the judgment dated
26.08.2012 in C.C.No.9 of 2011.
For Petitioner :Mr.K.Srinivasan
Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases
For Respondents :No appearance
---
ORDER
The CBI, which has investigated the case in C.C.No.9 of 2011 taken
on file by the Special Judge for TNPID Cases, Coimbatore, is before before
this Court to expunge certain remarks made by the trial Court while passing
the judgment in C.C.No.9 of 2011 on 26.08.2012.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.30022 of 2022
2. The trial Judge, while passing the judgment, had observed that
though more than 58,571 depositors had invested their money and been
cheated by the accused persons, in the final report, the CBI has shown only
1402 depositors and out of them, 1021 depositors alone were examined.
Pointing as a lapse, the trial Court has passed remark condemning the CBI
for not examining all the depositors. Further, the trial Court has observed
that all the genuine depositors, to get back their principal with interest from
the accused shall lodge fresh complaint before the CBI for prosecution.
3. The learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI submitted that
the offence committed in the year 2008-2009, final report filed in the year
2011 and trial after examining 1033 witnesses and nearly 2000 documents
ended in the year 2023. It is not necessary to examine all 58000 depositors
in the case of this nature. The First Information Report, which has the set
criminal law into motion, had culminated prosecution of the accused
persons. In the judgment, the trial Court has observed that the accused have
collected deposits from about 58571 persons to the tune of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.30022 of 2022
Rs.930,71,29,883/-. So, CBI ought to have examined them all.
4. TNPID, which is a composite act empowers the competent
authority DRO to distribute the money to the depositors from and out of the
money recovered from the accused persons. There is no bar for him to
distribute the money to the genuine deposit on being satisfied. It is not
necessary for every depositor to give evidence before the Court. The crime
of the accused had already been tested by the Court. The genuineness of the
depositors be done by the competent authority notified under the Act. The
Indian Evidence Act rely on the quality of evidence and not on the quantity.
Further, when one of the depositors by name Saravanakumar, approached
this Court by filing a petition to reopen the investigation and to examine
him as depositor/victim, this Court dismissed that petition stating that the
depositor like the petitioner can approach the competent authority for
claiming the amount in the manner known to law. Similar petition filed by
the another depositor by name, Eadu.Radhakrishnan was also dismissed by
this Court making it clear that examination of all the depositors is not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.30022 of 2022
required and if they are entitled for any refund, they can approach the
competent authority.
5. Therefore, the learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI
submitted that the trial Court observation in paragraph No.42 under the
caption “Remedy for remaining depositors, who are not examined by CBI”
and the remarks in paragraph No.45, the result portion condemning the CBI
for not examining all the depositors need to be expunged. Further, the
direction to CBI to register fresh First Information Report, in case of new
complaints need also to be set aside.
6. This Court, after perusing the judgment of the trial Court and
the orders of this Court referred in paragraph No.11 and 12 of the petition,
besides hearing the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for
the State hold that the trial Court condemn the CBI for the reason stated is
unwarranted. It is needless to examine all the depositors and it will be a
superfluous exercise causing delay. By not examining all the depositors, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.30022 of 2022
genuine depositors are not left without remedy. Under the Act the
competent authority is empowered to determine their claim and entertain
genuine claim petitions. There is no necessity to file fresh First Information
Report for this purpose, since the guilt of the accused persons had already
been tested and attained judicial finality.
7. With this observation, this Criminal original Petition is
allowed.
22.08.2023
Index:yes/no
Speaking order/non speaking order
ari
To
1.The Special Judgeof ro TNPID Cases, Coimbatore.
2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.30022 of 2022
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J
ari
Crl.O.P.No.30022 of 2022
22.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
