KURILAND P LTD Vs. P J THOMAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question involved in this case is a fairly interesting interplay of- Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "the Code"} and Sections 131, 139 and 165 of the Evidence Act - in the context of the protection available to a person under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. Elaborate arguments were addressed by learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri. Santhosh P. Poduval and Sri. John S. Ralph, appearing for the party respondent.

(2.) The petitioners are accused 1 and 2 in C.C. No. 198/00 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thrissur, involving offences under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Prize Chit and Money Circulations Banning Act, 1978 {for short the Act }.

(3.) It is the complainant s case that he is a share holder in the 1st accused company. Accused 2 to 12 are the Directors and 13th accused is the Manager of the 1st accused. Accused 2 to 13 are responsible for the conduct of the business of the company and its day to day affairs. That the accused, with the dishonest intention to cheat the public and cause wrongful loss to them and thereby to achieve illegal gain to the company, decided to conduct 15th monthly chit to be started on 15.12.1998; that the accused had published this in the Malayala Manorama daily dated 5.11.1998. That, after referring to the manner in which the chit was proposed to be conducted, it is alleged, it was conducted as a conventional chit. In other words, the accused have been carrying on a banned activity; that there was a dishonest intention on the part of the accused to cheat the subscribers; to deceive them and to make illegal gain. That the petitioner was a Director. He had raised his voice against the illegal activities of accused 2 to 13, who are responsible for the conduct of the affairs of the company and their actions amounted to offences punishable under Sections 3 to 5 of the Act as also under Sections 417 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.