Madrasdated High Court · 2025

Crl.A.Nos.498, 1667 of 2023 & 163 of 2024imprisonment for each counts; to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1,25,000/- for each counts (1,25,000/- x 15 counts = Rs.18,75,000/-) under Sec.406 of I.P.C., in default of payment of fine to undergo further nine months rigorous imprisonment for each counts; to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/- for each counts (1,00,000/- x 15 counts = Rs.15,00,000/-) under Section 5 of T.N.P.I.D. Act, imprisonment for each counts with a total fine amount Rs.52,50,000/-For Appellant: Mr.R.John Sathyan, Senior Counsel for Mr.K.R.SankaranFor Respondent : Mr.S.Raja Kumar, Additional Public ProsecutorCrl.A.No.1667 of 2023M.Subramanian... AppellantVs.1.State Represented byDeputy Superintendent of Police,Economic Offences Wing-II,Coimbatore(crime No.3 of 2015)2.S.P.Kalaimani... RespondentsPRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 372 of Cr.P.C. r/w Section 11 of T.N.P.I.D.Act, praying to set aside the finding order against the appellant/PW-4 as fake depositor in CC.No.3 of 2018 on the Page 2 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.498, 1667 of 2023 & 163 of 2024file of the Special Judge, Special Court Under TNPID Act, Coimbatore by judgment dated 13.04.2023 and enhance the fine amount and compensation.For Appellant: Mr.B.Vasudevan For RespondentsFor R1 : Mr.S.Raja Kumar, Additional Public ProsecutorFor R2: Mr.R.John Sathyan, Senior Counsel for Mr.K.S.Karthik RajaCrl.A.No.163 of 20241.Rathinasamy2.Murugesh3.Muthusamy4.Karmegam... AppellantsVs.1.The State Represented byDeputy Superintendent of Police,Economic Offences Wing-II,Coimbatore(crime No.3 of 2015)2.S.P.Kalaimani... RespondentsPRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 372 of Cr.P.C. r/w Section 11 of T.N.P.I.D.Act, praying to set aside the finding order against the appellants that the appellants/PW20, 23, 28, 32 are fake depositors in CC.No.3 of 2018 on the file of the Special Judge, Special Court Under TNPID Act, Coimbatore by judgment dated 13.04.2023 and Page 3 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.498, 1667 of 2023 & 163 of 2024enhance the fine amount and compensation.For Appellants: Mr.B.Vasudevan For RespondentsFor R1 : Mr.S.Raja Kumar, Additional Public ProsecutorFor R2: Mr.R.John Sathyan, Senior Counsel for Mr.K.S.Karthik RajaCOMMON JUDGMENTThe criminal appeal in Crl.A.No.498 of 2023 has been filed against the judgment passed in CC.No.3 of 2018 on the file of the Special Judge, Special Court Under TNPID Act, Coimbatore by judgment dated 13.04.2023, thereby convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420 of IPC and Section 5 of TNPID Act, 1997. The case of the prosecution was that the first accused was a financial establishment called 'Nandhi Group Auto Finance' and it had A6 & A7 as its partners. A1 to A5 were the financial institutions. All the accused persons colluded with intention to collect deposits from the general public in the name of A1 to A5 and diverted the major portion of the deposit amounts to their own use. They had collected deposits intentionally, fraudulently, dishonestly and not had repaid the deposits and interest to the depositors. It was further alleged that they dishonestly Page 4 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.498, 1667 of 2023 & 163 of 2024misappropriated the deposits and converted the deposit amounts for their own use. Therefore, the respondent registered FIR in crime No.3 of 2015 for the offence punishable under Sections 120(b), 406, 420 of IPC and Section 5 of TNPID Act. After completion of investigation, final report was filed and the same was taken cognizance. In order to prove the charges, the prosecution had examined PW1 to PW38 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P177. On the side of the accused, they had examined DW1 and marked Ex.D1 to Ex.D7. The court marked Ex.C1 to Ex.C3. 2.On perusal of oral and documentary evidences, the trial court convicted the Appellant and sentenced him to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1,25,000/- for each counts (1,25,000/- x 15 counts Rs. 18,75,000/-) under Section 420 of I.P.C., in default of payment of fine, to undergo further one and half years rigorous imprisonment for each counts; to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1,25,000/- for each counts (1,25,000/- x 15 counts Rs.18,75,000/-) under Section 406 of I.P.C., in default of payment of fine, to undergo further nine months rigorous imprisonment for each counts; to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1,25,000/- for each counts Page 5 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.498, 1667 of 2023 & 163 of 2024(1,25,000/- x 15 counts = Rs.18,75,000/-) under Sec.406 of I.P.C., in default of payment of fine, to undergo further nine months rigorous imprisonment for each counts; to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/- for each counts (1,00,000/- x 15 counts = Rs.15,00,000/-) under Section 5 of T.N.P.I.D. Act. Aggrieved by the same, the accused/A6 has filed this criminal appeal.3.The criminal appeals in Crl.A.Nos.1667 of 2023 & 163 of 2024 have been filed by the victims/PW4, 20, 23, 28 & 32 against the judgment passed in CC.No.3 of 2018 on the file of the Special Judge, Special Court Under TNPID Act, Coimbatore dated 13.04.2023, thereby rejecting their claim and failed to order fine. 4.The learned counsel appearing for the victims submitted that the appellants were examined as PW4, 20, 23, 28 and 32. There were totally 24 depositors. However, the trial court found that nine depositors were fake and they fabricated the pronote and lodged complaint. The remaining depositors were found to be genuine and the trial court convicted the accused and ordered fine to the tune of the deposit amount. Page 6 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.498, 1667 of 2023 & 163 of 2024PW4 marked Ex.P18 to P32 to prove the charge against the accused for cheating of Rs.43,92,000/-. The trial court concluded that no rate of interest is mentioned in documents Ex.P22 and Ex.P23. Ex.P22 and Ex.P23 revealed that the accused agreed to give 26% interest for the deposit of Rs.20,00,000/- in each Ex.P22 and Ex.P23. The accused had signed and affixed his L.T.I. However, the trial court failed to consider the same and concluded that Ex.P22 and Ex.P23 are fake documents. It was further questioned as to how he mobilised the fund to the tune of Rs.40,00,000/- to deposit. With respect to Ex.P19 to Ex.P21, the sixth accused duly signed and proved that a sum of Rs.1,82,000/- was received by the accused. PW20 marked Ex.P124 to Ex.P126 and proved that he had deposited Rs.21,00,000/-. PW23 had marked Ex.P127 to Ex.132 and proved that he made deposits to the tune of Rs.18,25,000/-. PW28 had marked Ex.P155 and Ex.P156 and proved that he had deposited Rs.10,00,000/-. PW32 marked Ex.P161 and Ex.P162 and proved that he had deposited Rs.10,00,000/-. Unfortunately, the trial court held that all the pronotes which were marked by the appellants are fake ones. Therefore, the trial court completely rejected the claim of the appellants.5.Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for A6 Page 7 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.498, 1667 of 2023 & 163 of 2024submitted that insofar as the appellant in Crl.A.No.498 of 2023, the trial court held that 15 depositors out of 24 proved their claim and he was ordered to repay the entire deposit amount as fine. Accordingly, the appellant had settled the entire dues to the victims. Insofar as PW4, 20, 23, 28 and 32 is concerned, he pointed out that Ex.P22 and Ex.P23 marked by PW4 were fabricated ones. The contents of the said pronote itself proved that it was not deposit receipts and no finance company would execute such a document for any deposit. Therefore, even assuming that the signature is genuine, it can be construed only as pronote for the loan availed by A6. Likewise, Ex.P25 which was marked through PW20, is also a fabricated one wherein the signature of A6 has been forged. Ex.P134 was marked by PW23 which is a pronote forging the signature of A6 and it was rightly held to be fake. Another pronote which was marked through Ex.P28 is Ex.P155. PW32 had marked pronote as Ex.P161. Therefore, all the pronotes which were marked as Ex.P22, 23, 125, 134, 155 and 161 were held to be fake ones by forging the signature of A6. Therefore, the trial court rightly dismissed their claim and acquitted A6 for the complaints lodged by PW4, 20, 23, 28 & 32 and it does not warrant any interference of this Court.Page 8 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.498, 1667 of 2023 & 163 of 20246.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that though the trial court found Ex.P22, 23, 125, 134, 155 and 161 to be fake, the victim proved their complaints by marking bonds which were executed by A6. The bonds were marked as Ex.P18 to Ex.P21 and Ex.P127 to Ex.P132. However, the trial court failed to consider the same and completely rejected the case of the appellants in Crl.A.Nos.1667 of 2023 & 163 of 2024. Insofar as the criminal appeal in Crl.A.No.498 of 2023 is concerned, the appellant had settled the entire dues to all the victims as ordered by the trial court. 7.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused all the materials placed before this Court.8.In view of the entire amount settled by the appellant in Crl.A.No.498 of 2023 to 15 victims, the order of conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant in Crl.A.No.498 of 2023 by the impugned judgment insofaras the aforesaid 15 victims, is set aside and the criminal appeal in Crl.A.No.498 of 2023 is allowed.Page 9 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.498, 1667 of 2023 & 163 of 20249.Insofar as the victims' appeals, as rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for A6, the pronotes which were marked as Ex.P22, Ex.P23, Ex.P134, 155, 161, revealed that A6 had not executed the same. The contents of the pronote as follows:Mfpa ehd; vGjpf;bfhLj;j thf;FWjp Mtzk; (promissory note) vd;dbtd;why; vd; igdhd;rpw;F blghrpl;lhf mtru epkpj;jk; ehsJ njjpapy; j';fsplk; fldhf buhf;fk; th';fpf;bfhz;lJ U:gha;/20.00.000-? K:gyF U:gha; ,UgJ yl;rj;jpw;Fk; kP1?f;F 1000f;F 26 rjtPjk; U:gha; tPjk; tl;o nrh;j;J Toa tl;oa[k;. KjYk; jh';fs; ntz;Lk; nghJ j';fSf;fhftJ j';fs; cj;jut[ bgw;wth;fSf;fhtJ buhf;fkhfr; bry;Yj;Jntdhft[k; 10.Thus, it is clear that the pronote was not executed by A6 as if he borrowed loan to the tune of Rs.20,00,000/- and assured that it will be returned with 26% interest with.Page 10 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.498, 1667 of 2023 & 163 of 202411.Further, though the victims stated that the pronotes were executed by A6 on receipt of the fixed deposit, instead of issuing fixed deposit receipt since the bond sheets were not available at the time of making fixed deposits, the signature found ib the pronotes are completely different from the other signatures and also no financial institute will execute pronote for the fixed deposit. In fact, PW4 was issued bond for a sum of Rs.12,000/- on 01.06.2007 which was marked as Ex.P18, bond for a sum of Rs.70,000/- dated 22.10.2009 which was marked as Ex.P19, bond for a sum of Rs.70,000/- dated 04.04.2010 which was marked as Ex.P20 and bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- dated 28.03.2012 which was marked as Ex.P21. That apart, Ex.P22 and Ex.P23 were executed on the same day i.e. 10.11.2013, For the small amount deposited by the victims, they were issued bond, but for huge sum, such as Rs.20,00,000/- each by two depositors, the accused issued pronote. Therefore it is unbelievable to this Court. The trial court rightly rejected the claim of PW4. But the trial court failed to consider the bond executed by A6 which was marked as Ex.P18 to Ex.P21 for a sum of Rs.2,52,000/-. PW4 categorically proved his claim insofar as the bond executed by A6 for a sum of Rs.2,52,000/-. Insofar as PW20, the trial court rightly held that Ex.P25 is fake. However, the trial court failed to consider the bond executed by A6 Page 11 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.498, 1667 of 2023 & 163 of 2024which was marked as Ex.P124 for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- dated 08.06.2010. PW20 proved his claim for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- by marking the bond as Ex.P124. Insofar as PW23, he proved the bonds executed by A6 which was marked as Ex.P127 to Ex.P138 in favour of him and his family members. However, without any reason, the trial court erroneously rejected these claims. Insofar as PW28 & PW32, the trial court rightly rejected the claim pointing out the marking fake pronotes ie, Ex.P134, 155 & 161. 12.In view of the above, the learned Senior Counsel also submitted that A6 is ready and willing to settle the amount which was due under the bonds executed in favour of PW4 (Ex.P18 & Ex.21) to the tune of Rs.2,52,000/- with reasonable interest; a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- in favour of PW20 (Ex.P124) with reasonable interest; and a sum of Rs.3,20,000/- in favour of PW23 (Ex.P127 to Ex.P132) with reasonable interest. 13.In view of the above, the criminal appeals in Crl.A.Nos.1667 of 2023 & 163 of 2024 are partly allowed. A6 is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 5 of TNPID Act, 1997 and sentenced Page 12 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.498, 1667 of 2023 & 163 of 2024to pay fine of Rs.5,00,000/- to PW4, fine of Rs.2,00,000/- to PW20 and fine of Rs.6,00,000/- to PW23, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order, failing which A6 shall undergo one year rigorous imprisonment for the aforesaid each fine. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 29.08.2025Index: Yes/NoNeutral citation: Yes/NoSpeaking/non-speaking orderlokPage 13 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.498, 1667 of 2023 & 163 of 2024G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.lokTo1. Special Judge, Special Court Under TNPID Act, Coimbatore 2.Deputy Superintendent of Police,Economic Offences Wing-II,Coimbatore3.The Public Prosecutor,High Court of MadrasCrl.A.Nos.498, 1667 of 2023 & 163 of 202429.08.2025Page 14 of 14