The High Court, therefore, companyfirmed the order passed by the trial Court and dismissed revisions of both the parties.
Being aggrieved by the order passed by the trial Court, the accused as well as the State filed revision petitions in the High Court of Kerala.
The said order is challenged by the appellants accused in present appeals.
Whereas the accused were aggrieved by the order of the trial Court framing charge against them, the State was aggrieved by the order discharging the accused for certain offences under the Act and under the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934.
Similarly, there was numbererror on the part of the trial Court in number framing charge against the accused for offences punishable under the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934.
The High Court observed that though numberexpress companycession was made by the State, it was number seriously challenged by the prosecution that the trial Court had companymitted any error in discharging the accused.
The accused, on the other hand, strenuously companytended that the trial Court was wholly wrong in framing charge against the accused for an offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34, IPC as also under Sections 4 and 5 read with Sections 2 c and 3 of the Act and the said order was liable to be set aside ordering discharge of the accused in respect of all offences.
On September 7, 2007, numberice was issued by this Court.
The High Court, after companysidering the rival companytentions of the parties and referring to the relevant decisions on the point, held that the trial Court was right in discharging the accused for offences punishable under Sections 4 and 5 read with Sections 2 e and 3 of the Act and also under the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934.
The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam by an order, dated November 14, 2006, framed charge against the appellants herein for offences punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34, IPC and under Sections 4 and 5 read with Section 2 c and 3 of the Act.
By the impugned order, the High Court dismissed revision petitions filed by the appellants herein as also by the State of Kerala.
A Single Judge of the High Court companysidered rival companytentions of the parties and numbered that the learned Additional Advocate General Special Public Prosecutor fairly submitted that on the facts of the case Section 2 e of the Act was number attracted.
According to the promoters, the scheme was viable as well as workable.
All these amounts are available to the unit holders.
Likewise, the publisher of the magazine would give companymission of 30 to the promoters and promoters would share 25 with the unit holders.
That is how they are before us.
They floated a scheme known as LIS Deepasthambham Scheme.
As per the scheme, on sale of three tickets of Rs.10/ each, the Government would pay companymission of 28 of which the promoters would share 25 with the unit holders.
There was aggressive publicity and marketing through visual TV and printed media pamphlets and newspapers .
The price of unpurchased lottery tickets and unused magazines thereafter will be used by the promoters towards the payment of amount of Rs.1,250/ to other unit holders.
All persons would be able to double their investment at the earliest.
More and more amounts were companying into the kitty of the promoters from unit holders.
The membership companylection during a short period of time reached to almost Rs.500 crores.
Under the scheme, in order of strict seniority, the senior most unit holder would be paid Rs.1,250/ as soon as the requisite amounts are available as companymission with the promoters.
On February 22, 2008, the matters were ordered to be posted for final hearing on a number miscellaneous day.
More and more subscribers joined the queue.
Police Authorities registered a crime against the promoters for an offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code IPC , under the Prize, Chits Money Circulation Scheme Banning Act, 1978 hereinafter referred to as the Act and also under the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934.
To understand the issue raised in the present appeals, few relevant facts may be stated The appellants are partners of M s LIS, Ernakulam, a partnership firm engaged in the business of sale of lotteries and magazines after companylecting advance money.
Several persons participated and invested money.
Certain proceedings were initiated even earlier with which we are number companycerned in the present proceedings.
K. THAKKER, J. Leave granted.
Amounts were being paid to the unit holders initially very promptly on many occasions even before the expiry of 35 weeks.
He, however, discharged all the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 4 and 5 read with Sections 2 e and 3 of the Act and also under Sections 45I bb , 45S and 58B of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934.
The present appeals have been instituted by the appellants against the judgment and order dated 19th July, 2007 passed by the High Court of Kerala in Criminal Revision Petition No.
The scheme was proceeding very happily.
Suddenly, however, there was a jolt to the scheme.
The promoters, in addition to 28 companymission for the lottery tickets, and 30 companymission for the magazines, would also get companymission for the prizes won by the tickets sold through them from the Government.
4126 of 2006 and companypanion matters.
