VINODE V. LUKA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the sixth accused in C.C.No.161/2012 and C.C.No.148/2013 on the files of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam, and the seventh accused in C.C.No.1477/2014 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ramankari. The offence alleged against the petitioner in C.C.No.161/2012 are under Ss. 403, 420 and 120B read with Sec. 34 I.P.C and that of in C.C.No.148/2013 are under Ss. 403 and 420 I.P.C read with Sec. 34 I.P.C and also under Ss. 2(c), 3, 4 and 5 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978. The offence alleged in C.C.No.1477/2014 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ramankary are under Ss. 409, 418, 420, 120(A) and 120(B) read with Sec. 34 I.P.C and Ss. 2(c), 3, 4 and 5 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978. In C.C.No.148/2013, there are altogether nine accused, and in the other two cases, there are eight accused.

(2.) The prosecution case is that, with the common intention to commit cheating, the accused had conspired together and gave the false promise to the depositors that if they invest in the partnership firm by name 'LIS' conducted by the first accused as its Managing Trustee and accused Nos.2 and 3 as partners, the amount so deposited would be doubled within a year and that the investments so made by the depositors would be returned to them after the prescribed period as double the amount, and thereafter, did not honour the above commitment and failed to return the amount so deposited by the depositors. The petitioner was said to be working as Manager in the above establishment conducted by the first accused as Managing Trustee and accused Nos.2 and 3 as partners. The total amount embezzled in the crime involved in C.C.No.148/2013 is Rs.52,37,375.00, and that of in C.C.No.161/2012 and C.C.No.1477/2014 are respectively Rs.4,63,000.00 and Rs.8,93,125.00.

(3.) In the present petitions, the petitioner would contend that he is totally innocent and that he has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further contended by the petitioner that he was only an employee of the establishment conducted by accused Nos.1 to 3 and that he cannot be held liable for the offences alleged in these cases. For the above reason, the petitioner seeks to quash the proceedings in these cases.