ADHILAKSHMI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petition and Crl. Mps. coming on for hearing upon perusing the petitions filed in support thereof on the file of the High Court and upon hearing Mr. P. C. Narayanan, advocate for the petitioner in all the petitions and of Mr. Babu Muthu Meeran, Govt., Advocate (Crl. side) on behalf of the respondent in all the petitions, the Court made the following Order : The accused No. 2 in C.C. No. 3120/98 seeks to quash the proceedings pending against her by way of Crl. O.P. No. 1850 of 2000. The very same person, who is figuring as accused No. 20 in CC No. 2/2000 on the file of the TNPID Court, High Court Buildings, Chennai, seeks to quash the proceedings pending against her in the abovesaid case by way of Crl. O.P. No. 8514 of 2000. Since the petitioner and respondent are one and the same and the points involved are also one and the same, common order is passed in both the O.Ps.

(2.) The Central Crime Branch, Chennai registered a case in Crime No. 327/97 for offences under Ss. 420 and 506, II, IPC on the complaint given by one Lalitha and investigation started resulting in laying of final report before two Courts; one before the XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai and the other before the Special Court trying cases under TNPID Act. The petitioner, who figures as A2 in the case before the XI Metropolitan Magistrate Saidapet, also figures as A. 20 in the case before the Special Court After the first information report by the said Lalitha, some of the depositors also filed individual reports and all the reports were clubbed together by the investigating Agency and it investigated into the alleged offences committed by the accused including this petitioner. Learned counsel submits that insofar as the case pending before the Special Court is concerned, S. 5 of the Tamil Nadu Protection of interests of Depositors Act states that every person in the management of the affairs of the financial establishment shall be punished and merely because she is the wife of A1 in one case and A19 in the other case, she has been roped in and that she was not at all responsible for the management of the affairs of the financial establishment. Learned Govt. Advocate submits that the investigating agency gathered materials to implicate this petitioner also in the commission of the crime, where a lot of depositors were duped by this petitioner and others as well as by the financial establishment concerned.

(3.) Insofar as this petitioner is concerned according to the learned Govt. Advocate, the statements of several depositors including one V. S. Bhashyam, Dharamalingam, Govindan and Krishna, implicate this petitioner in the crime. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the 161 statements of these witnesses are inadmissible in evidence and therefore on the strength of the inadmissible evidence, the petitioner cannot be permitted to undergo the agony of facing the trial in the absence of any complicity based on any documentary evidence like participation in avertisements or inviting depositors. He would further say that the first information report does not whisper anything about the participation of this petitioner.