S PARTHASARATHY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is the 3rd accused, in the case, among three accused. THE appellant was working as a marketing manager in the first accused firm. THE second accused is the proprietor of the first accused firm.

(2.) IT is the case of the prosecution that deposits have been collected from the public, by promising that interests will be paid at the rate of 24% per annum. Deposits to the tune of Rs.12,94,600/- have been collected and the same was not returned. IT is the further case of the prosecution that though interests were paid initially, the cheques given for the return of the money got bounced, resulting in the registration of the case.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the appellant submits that some of the witnesses have stated that the appellant accompanied A-2 for convincing the depositors and some of the witnesses have stated that on behalf of the second accused, the appellant canvassed for the deposits. In none of the Fixed Deposit receipts (FDRs), the appellant has signed and in all the deposits, it is only the second accused, who is the proprietor of the first accused firm, has signed. Ex.P-196 and Ex.P-212 are the letters sent to the respective depositors, after the cheques have been dishonoured. It is submitted that though it has been signed by the appellant in his capacity as a marketing manager, the communication has been sent only in the name of the first accused firm. It is further submitted that the appellant worked only as an employee of the firm and it is not the case of the prosecution that the appellant also has taken the money deposited with the firm.