LAILA CHRISTOBEL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is filed against the order and judgment of the Special District and Sessions Judge (TANPID Act cases), Madurai in C.C.No. 91 of 2008, dated 31.03.2015, convicting the appellant / Accused No.3 for the offences under Section 5 of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1997, [hereinafter referred to as 'TNPID Act' (38 counts) and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for six [6] months to each count and also pay a fine of Rs.500/- to each count in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months for each count. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) The facts which gave rise to the filing of the present appeal are briefly stated hereunder:

(3.) Mr.S.C.Herold Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant / Accused No.3 would at the outset submit that the appellant herein was merely a wife of the second accused who alone was the proprietor and she was never incharge of the concern at any point of time and she was roped in only because of the fact that she was the wife of the second accused. In the absence of any proof that she was incharge of the day-to-day administration of the firm, both oral and documentary, the conviction recorded by the trial Court stands vitiated. In this case, according to the learned Counsel, there was no clinching oral evidence or any documentary evidence to show that the appellant herein was involved in the business of the first accused concern.