# · [2008] 10 S.C.R 609 KURIACHAN CHACKO & ORS v. STATE OF KERALA - **Citation:** [2008] 10 S.C.R. 609 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 2008 - **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 1044 of 2008 - **Bench:** C.K. Thakker, D.K. Jain - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/2008-10-s-c-r-609-kuriachan-chacko-ors-v-state-of-kerala-23362 - **Pages:** 27 ## Headnote Prize Chits & Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978: ss.2,3,4 and 5/Penal Code, 1860: ss.415 and 4201 ReA B serve Bank of India Act, 1934; ss.45/(bb), 45S and 58B: c Money Circulation Scheme - Accused floating a scheme for selling of lotteries and magazines by collecting money in advance - Police registering a case against accused treating the scheme as Money Circulation Scheme violating provisions under 1978 Act, 1934 Act and for committing offences punishD able under s. 420 !PC - Trial Court framed charge against accused for offences punishable under s. 2(c) and 3 of 1978 Act and under s. 420 !PC - It however discharged the accused for offences punishable under s.2(e) of 1978 Act as also under s. 451 (bb), 455 and 58Bof1934 Act and under s. 420 /PC- and E, under s.420 !PC- Revision Petitions by the state as well as by accused.- Dismissed by High Court - Correctness of- Held: Making of quick money and enrolment of members into the Scheme, both ingredients for applicability of S.2( c) of 1978 Act . are present - Courts below found that there is ~n element or·. ·F'"•· cheating inasmuch as accused inducing common public by way of representation to part with money on the lure of doubling the amount - Prima facie, the Courts were satisfied that but for the representation and benefits sought to be given under the Scheme, the victims/public would not have acted on such repG resentation - Thus, a case of committing offence under s.415 !PC has been made out- Hence, the Courts below. were right in not interfering with the prosecution at the stage of the framing of charge - No reason found to interfere with the order. 609 H 610 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 10 S.C.R. A Accused-appellants are partners in a firm engaged in the business of sale of l'Otteries'and magazines. They floated a scheme Jor selling of lotteries and magazines . In terms of the scheme, the Investors by investing in the ·.· scheme, would be able to double .their. investment in a B ·· short period of time. The scheme appeared to be very attractive and became popular. Howev,er1 the Police reg is~ tered a ·c·ase~·against the firm for committing an offence· punishabl~ 4nder.s.420, IPC; for violation of the provision of the Pri~e, Chits and money Circulati<>ri .Scheme (Banc . t'ling) Act~ 1978 and also the Reserve Bank of India, Act, 1934: Tria't, Court: framed charge. against a~Gused for com~ mitting offenc;:es punishable under: s:420 tlw. ~;34JPC and und~f/ss.4· ·a··rid ·5 r/w ss.2(c) and 3 .of 1978 Act but . :.:: ctischarsed them and also u11der ss.451(bb), 45S and 588 . o: of.)9~~ [\ct as >a.lso,.un,der ~;2(~) _o! 1978 f-pt.· Both_ the ·ac- . · · cused anct the State -~iled. a rev1s1on petition against the . order of the. trial Court.' Dismissing the .revision petitions, . the High . Court held that the friai . Court was righUn dis:. Charging the accuse~tfor offences punishable under Sec'." . E .·.Jions 4·and Sread·wiUr Sec~fons 2(e).ahq.3 of the.Act and··· . also ~under "the ~eserv:~ Bank of. lhdia Act; .1934; that·· the. trial Cc:n.1rt\~at> rig~t'irl'frarnii;ig·.the charge.againstthe ac~ cuse.cffor com'mitting:offE!nces punishabfe under· Sections · 4 arid !(rea<;I witt($ectiot)'$>·~(c).:artd 3. of 1.978:Ac.farid also undefs·ection 420 te'ad: 0wltff·s·ectfon 34, IPC. Hence, 'the F"''~pfe'seiltap~e.als filed by th'e.ac.cused.. ·: · .··. · · , ·· · · , •• ···'. .•• •' -·-- .. l' ·.-· ... ·:.· ., .. .,. :,_ .. -: ,- .~:·Accused•appellants contended that the trial Court· ··:····. ·and:'.theHigh'Courtwere right in discharging the accw~ed · ::: .for ,committing· certain offer:ices?pl.Jnisha:ble unde·r• the . . ci :>~riz~ Chits ~nd M~ney Circ~ulation Scheme.(B~nning) Act, .· · .... 1978 and also under the Rese.rve Bank of India Act, 1934; that· since the Stat~ .has not' preferred appeal :a~fainstthe said order,the .. decision has become.finaf;: thatb.othJhe CourtS below were llitong in not 'di~cti~rgingJh~ c:ICcused for committing offences punishable underSections 4 a ## Text _Characters 0–39,899 of 52,591. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39899 for what follows._ ,.. · [2008] 10 S.C.R 609 KURIACHAN CHACKO & ORS. V. STATE OF KERALA (Criminal Appeal No. 1044 of 2008) JULY 10,2008 [C.K. THAKKER AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.] Prize Chits & Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978: ss.2,3,4 and 5/Penal Code, 1860: ss.415 and 4201 ReA B serve Bank of India Act, 1934; ss.45/(bb), 45S and 58B: c Money Circulation Scheme - Accused floating a scheme for selling of lotteries and magazines by collecting money in advance - Police registering a case against accused treating the scheme as Money Circulation Scheme violating provisions under 1978 Act, 1934 Act and for committing offences punishD able under s. 420 !PC - Trial Court framed charge against accused for offences punishable under s. 2(c) and 3 of 1978 Act and under s. 420 !PC - It however discharged the accused for offences punishable under s.2(e) of 1978 Act as also under s. 451 (bb), 455 and 58Bof1934 Act and under s. 420 /PC- and E, under s.420 !PC- Revision Petitions by the state as well as by accused.- Dismissed by High Court - Correctness of- Held: Making of quick money and enrolment of members into the Scheme, both ingredients for applicability of S.2( c) of 1978 Act . are present - Courts below found that there is ~n element or·. ·F'"•· cheating inasmuch as accused inducing common public by way of representation to part with money on the lure of doubling the amount - Prima facie, the Courts were satisfied that but for the representation and benefits sought to be given under the Scheme, the victims/public would not have acted on such repG resentation - Thus, a case of committing offence under s.415 !PC has been made out- Hence, the Courts below. were right in not interfering with the prosecution at the stage of the framing of charge - No reason found to interfere with the order. 609 H 610 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 10 S.C.R. A Accused-appellants are partners in a firm engaged in the business of sale of l'Otteries'and magazines. They floated a scheme Jor selling of lotteries and magazines . In terms of the scheme, the Investors by investing in the ·.· scheme, would be able to double .their. investment in a B ·· short period of time. The scheme appeared to be very attractive and became popular. Howev,er1 the Police reg is~ tered a ·c·ase~·against the firm for committing an offence· punishabl~ 4nder.s.420, IPC; for violation of the provision of the Pri~e, Chits and money Circulati<>ri .Scheme (Banc . t'ling) Act~ 1978 and also the Reserve Bank of India, Act, 1934: Tria't, Court: framed charge. against a~Gused for com~ mitting offenc;:es punishable under: s:420 tlw. ~;34JPC and und~f/ss.4· ·a··rid ·5 r/w ss.2(c) and 3 .of 1978 Act but . :.:: ctischarsed them and also u11der ss.451(bb), 45S and 588 . o: of.)9~~ [\ct as >a.lso,.un,der ~;2(~) _o! 1978 f-pt.· Both_ the ·ac- . · · cused anct the State -~iled. a rev1s1on petition against the . order of the. trial Court.' Dismissing the .revision petitions, . the High . Court held that the friai . Court was righUn dis:. Charging the accuse~tfor offences punishable under Sec'." . E .·.Jions 4·and Sread·wiUr Sec~fons 2(e).ahq.3 of the.Act and··· . also ~under "the ~eserv:~ Bank of. lhdia Act; .1934; that·· the. trial Cc:n.1rt\~at> rig~t'irl'frarnii;ig·.the charge.againstthe ac~ cuse.cffor com'mitting:offE!nces punishabfe under· Sections · 4 arid !(rea<;I witt($ectiot)'$>·~(c).:artd 3. of 1.978:Ac.farid also undefs·ection 420 te'ad: 0wltff·s·ectfon 34, IPC. Hence, 'the F"''~pfe'seiltap~e.als filed by th'e.ac.cused.. ·: · .··. · · , ·· · · , •• ···'. .•• •' -·-- .. l' ·.-· ... ·:.· ., .. .,. :,_ .. -: ,- .~:·Accused•appellants contended that the trial Court· ··:····. ·and:'.theHigh'Courtwere right in discharging the accw~ed · ::: .for ,committing· certain offer:ices?pl.Jnisha:ble unde·r• the . . ci :>~riz~ Chits ~nd M~ney Circ~ulation Scheme.(B~nning) Act, .· · .... 1978 and also under the Rese.rve Bank of India Act, 1934; that· since the Stat~ .has not' preferred appeal :a~fainstthe said order,the .. decision has become.finaf;: thatb.othJhe CourtS below were llitong in not 'di~cti~rgingJh~ c:ICcused for committing offences punishable underSections 4 and · .. H ...... . ,,.. . r ~- ) KURIACHAN CHACKO & ORS. v. STATE OF 611 KERA LA ... > ... -t 5 read with Sections 2(c) and 3 of the Act as also for an A offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34, IPC; that the scheme floated by them could not fall within the mischief of 'Money Circulation Scheme' as defined in clause (c) of Section 2 of 1978 Act. If it is so, ban - -( envisaged by Section 3 of the Act would not apply. ConB sequently, penal provisions of Sections 4 and 5 cannot be invoked; and that the Courts below were wrong in observing that prima facie, the provisions of the Act were attracted and appellants could not be discharged. Moreover, for application of Section 415 IPC there must be c fraudulent and dishonest intention which was not present in the instant case. Penalty provision of Section 420 IPC had, therefore, no application. Respondent-State submitted that both the Courts below considered the relevant provisions of law, requisite ingredients under the 1978 Act 0 and formed a prima facie opinion that the scheme in question was covered by definition clause 2(c) (Money Circulation Scheme) and the case was required to be gone into by a competent Court; the accused committed the offence of 'cheating' as defined in Section 415 IPC and the accused could not be discharged. E Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1 In the instant case, both the essentials of money Circulation Scheme as defined under of Section 2(c) of the Prize, Chits & Money Circulation Scheme (BanF ning) Act, are present. The scheme provides for (i) making of quick or easy money, and (ii) it is dependant upon an event or contingency relative or applicable to the enrolment of members into the scheme. A member would be entitled to double the amount invested by him only afG ter enrolment of additional 14 members in the scheme. The second ingredient, namely, such payment of money is dependant on the "event or contingency relative or applicable to the enrolment of members into the scheme" is thus very much present. (Para - 32) [626 G-8] H 612 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 10 S.C.R. .·A State of West Bengal vs. Swapan Kumar Guha,. (1982) 1 sec 561-"" distinguished. 1.2 The plain language of Section 2 of 1978 Act does . not.insist that e:nrolment ofmembers must be by the members already enrolled. It is impossible to read into the 8 statiJtory provision such requirement which is not.stipu- - lated by Parliament Reading it so would result in re-writing of the section; which is certainly not permissible in our constitutional system. The event or contingency on the happening of which the amount would become payC able must be relative or applicable to the enrolment of the members intothescheme. It is immaterial by whom such members are enrolled. It may be by members, by promoters or their agents or by gullible sections of the society suo motu (by themselves). The sole consideration i¥> that D ·. paymen(of money rnust _be dependent on. an. event or . · contingency relative or applicable to the enrohn~nt of more persons into the scheme, nothing -more; though nothing less. (Para - 33) [627 E-H] · · . . 1.3 The Courts below rightly held that prima facie c·ase had been made out againstthe acc1ised. Both th~ ingre- . dientsnecessary for application of Section 2(c) of1978 Acta re present The trial Court, for coming to thatconclu- . sion, referred to certain docllmei:its. The.High'Court also. upheld the argument of the prosecution that the scheme · F was a. 'rnathematical impossibility'. The promoters of the . scheme very well knew that itis certain that the scheme · was: impracticable and unworkable making tall promises which the makers of the promises knew fully well that it ·Z"'G: ~·~ttlfl(~pJj~ork 1~.~ccessfully.Jt could work tor so~e time m'!~ha_t:~!)LI;I cal') .t?e robbed to pay Peter' but ultimately -~h·in''tflere'is 'acUfrge mass of Peters, they will be left in ~ ~., 1 rt'.'I fl ~ ,-J ~ tiu.r::rvf.'t~ '. . . the lurch w1tnout any remedy as they would by then have . ·g~eW.deceiV~cit~HcFdeprived of their money. (Paras -35 & '37} [628 1-o:E';· '63b H; 631 A-Bl . ... ?-· - ,. KURIACHAN CHACKO & ORS. v. STATE OF 613 .. ;._ KERA LA 1.4 The ratio laid down by this Co~rt in State Of Madhya A Pradesh vs. Mir Basit Ali Khan & Ors., has no application. In that case, the Court was considering the provisions of Section 420 read with Section 1208 IPC. Obviously, it was not a case under 1978 Act. On the facts and in the circum- - ....- stances of the case, the Courts below were right in not B interfering with the prosecution at the stage of framing of charge. No reason is found to interfere with the impugned order. (Paras-40 & 41) [633 C-E] State Of Madhya Pradesh vs. Mir Basit Ali Khan & Ors., (1971) 2 sec 96 - held inapplicable. c 2.1 So far as the offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section34, IPC is concerned, it is true that for application of penal provision of Section 420 IPC, there ---.. must be 'cheating' as defined in Section 415 IPC. (Para- "I 42) (633-E] D 2.2 The trial Court as well as the High Court considered the facts of the case and held that there is element of cheating inasmuch as a representation was made by the accused that every unit holder will get double the amount E .... invested by him; the representation was false, the maker of the representation was aware that the representation was not true and by such representation, he deceived the > victim to believe the representation to be true and actuf ~ .ated him to act on such representation. The promoters F I induced common public to part with money on the lure of doubling the amount. Prima facie, the Courts were satisfied that but for such representation and the benefit · sought to be given under the scheme, the victims would not have acted on such representation. It was, therefore, G a case of application of Section 415 IPC. Prima facie case -- --; had been made out in absence of better ~xplanation by the accused. If it is so, it could be said to be a case for application of Section 420 read with Section 34 IPC. (Para45) [634 D-G] H 614 SUPREME COURT REPORTS . [2008] 10 S. C.R. A 2.3 For the foregoing reasons, both the Courts be- ·low were right in framing the charge against the appellants and no illegality has been committed by them in coming to such conclusion. It is no doubt, true, that the above orders do not mean that the accused have committed such B offences. It only means that a prima facie case has been --J...~ made out to frame charge and at that stage, no interference is called, for. (Para-47) [635 A-C] 3. It is clarified that no opinion has been expressed on the merits on. the matter one way or the other. All the C observations made 'by the trial Court, by the High Court as well as by this Court, must be construed as limited to the framing of charge and nothing more than that. As and when the main matter will come up before the Court for hearing, the Court will decide it on merits without being D inhibited or influenced by the above observations. (Para48) [635 C-E] CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1044 of 2008 E From the final Judgment and Order dated 19.7.2007 of F G H the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Criminal Rev. Pet No. 4126 of 2006 (A) WITH Crl. A. Nos. 1045 and 1046 of2008 U.U. Lalit, Saiby Jose Kidangoor, Wills Mathews, M.K. Michael, C.N. Sree Kumar, Dushyant Parshar, P.R. Nayak, Thomas Joseph, George, Hari Kumar G. and C.K Sasi forthe Appellants. Rajinder Sachar, Shanti Bhushan, Bharat Swaroop Sharma andR Sathish for the-Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by C.K. THAKKER, J. 1. Leave granted. .. .·"· KURIACHAN CHACKO & ORS. v. STATE OF KERALA [C.K. THAKKER, J.] 615 2. The present appeals have been instituted by the appelA lants against the judgment and order dated 191h July, 2007 passed by the High Court of Kerala in Criminal Revision Petition No. 4126 of 2006 and companion matters. By the impugned order, the High Court dismissed revision petitions filed by the appellants herein as also by the State of Kerala. s 3. To understand the issue raised in the present qppeals, few relevant facts may be stated: 4. The appellants are partners of Mis LIS, Ernakulam, a partnership firm engaged in the business of sale of lotteries c and magazines after collecting advance money. They floated a scheme known as "LIS Deepasthambham Scheme". The scheme was simple in its conception. A person has to pay Rs.625/- and purchase one unit of lotteries from the promoters. The promoters will make use of Rs.350/- to purchase 35 lottery tickets of the Kera la State Government each of Rs.10/- for the D unit holderfor the next 35 weeks. If the unit holder wins any prize up to Rs.5,000/- in the 35 draws, the promoters shall collect the amount and pay the same to the unit holder. If the unit holder . wins any prize above Rs.5,000/-, the ticket shall. be handed over to the unit holder for collection of the amount. The balance of · E Rs.275/- (Rs.625 - Rs.350) will be usedto make the unit holder a subscriber of a magazine by name 'Thrikalam' for one ;year. The said magazine would reproduce relevant and important materials from other magazines. It would also furnish necessa_ry information about the lottery tickets which have won prizes. F 5. The unit holder will be returned (paid) not only Rs.625/- which. he had initially invested, but twice his investment i.e. Rs.1,250/- (less Rs.100/- as service charges for the promoters ·and legal deduction for tax, etc.) on an early date. As per the G scheme, on sale of three tickets of Rs.10/- each, the Government would pay commission of 28% of which the promoters would share 25% with the unit holders. Likewise, the publisher of the magazine would give commission of 30% to the promoters and promoters would share 25% with the unit holders. Al! H 616 SUPREME COURT REPORTS J2008] 10 S~C.R. A. A these amounts are available to the unit-holders. Under the scheme, in order of stri.ct seniority, the senior most unit holder would be paid Rs.1,250/- as soon as the requisite amounts are available as commission with the promoters. The promoters, in addition to 28% commission for the lottery tickets, and 30% -J.-- ., B commission for the magazines, would also get commission for the prizes won by the tickets sold through them from the Government. Those' amounts also would be entirely made available for payment to .unit holders. If a unit holder is paid Rs.1 ,250/- before the expiry of 35 weeks, no lottery tickets will be purchased c on his behalf thereafter. It is because he had already been paid the requisite amount. On the same reasoning, if the amount of Rs.1 ,250/- is paid to the subscriber before the expiry of one year, 'Thrikalam.' magazine would also not be. sent to the subscriber thereafter. The price of unpurchased lottery tickets and D unused magazines thereafter will be used by the promoters to·· wards the payment of amount of Rs.1 ,250/- to other unit holders. According to the promoters, the scheme was viable as well as workable. All persons would be able to double their investment at the earliest No specific ti~e, however, was given but it was assured that the amount would be doubled at the earliest E and it would be paid on the basis of seniority. Under the scheme, / the amount of Rs.1,250/- (double the investment by the unit (' holder) will be paid as soon as 14 more members are enrolled. The advantage of technology was borrowed. Passwords could be chosen. The.re was a web site.for promoters. The unit holder \ F could use his password and the site would reveal all details .J.. about the tickets purchased on behalf of the unit holder by the promoters. The unit holders thus would be able know the details of the tickets purchased for them by the promoters and would also able to ascertain whether any prizes had been won G by any ticket purchased on their behalf by the promoters. 6. The idea appeared to be very attractive. Several per- ~ ..,.... sons participated and invested money. The membership coilection during a short period of time reached to almost Rs.500 H crores. Amounts were being paid to the unit holders initially very • __;') . .! ....- "' _j ~ :.. 'l \ - -t .,.t ~ KURIACHAN CHACKO & ORS. v. STATE OF 617 KERALA [C.K. THAKKER, J.] promptly-on many occasions even be'ore the expiry of 35 A weeks. More and more subscribers joined the queue. There wa~ aggressive publicity and marketing through vis4al (TV) and printed media (pamphlets and newspapers). The scheme was proceeding very happily. More and more amounts were coming into the kitty of the promoters from unit holders . B 7. Suddenly, however, there was a jolt to the scheme. Police Authorities registered a crime against the promoters for an offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code (IPC), under the Prize, Chits & Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and also c under the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934. Certain proceedings were initiated even earlier with which we are not concerned in the present proceedings. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam by an order, dated November 14, 2006, framed charge against the appellants herein for offences punishable D under Section 420 read with Section 34, IPC and under Sections 4 and 5 read with Section 2(c) and 3 of the Act. He, however, discharged all the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 4 and 5 read with Sections 2(e) and (3) of the Act and also under Sections 451(bb), 45S and 588 of the ReE serve Bank of India Act, 1934. 8. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the trial Court, the accused as well as the State filed revision petitions in the High Court of Kera la. Whereas the accused were aggrieved by the order of the trial Court framing charge against them, the F State was aggrieved by the order discharging the accused for certain offences under the Act and under the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934. 9. A Single Judge of the High Court considered rival conG tentions of the parties and noted that the learned Additional Advocate General/Special Public Prosecutor fairly submitted that on the facts of the case Section 2(e) of the Act was not attracted. Similarly, there was no error on the part of the trial Court in not framing charge against the accused for offences H_. l t 618 . SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 10 S.C.R. ··, A ·punishable .under the Reserve Bank of l ndia Act, 1934. The High Court observed that though no express concession was made by the State, it was not seriously challenged by the prosecution that the trial Court had committed any error in discharging the accused. B 10. The accused, on the other hand, strenuously contended that the trial Court was wholly wrong in framing charge against the accused for an offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34, IPC as also under Sections 4 and 5 read with Sections 2( c) and 3 of the Act and the said order was liable to be C set aside ordering discharge of the accused in respect of all offences. 11. The High Court, after considering the rival contentions of the parties and referring to the relevant decisions on the point, 0 held that the trial Court was right in discharging the accused for offences punishable under Sections4 and 5 read with Sections 2(e) and 3 of the Act and also under the Reserve Ban.kof India Act, 1934, The High Court held that the trial Court was also right in framing the charge against the accused for offences· punishable under Sections 4 and 5 read with Sections 2(c) and 3 of . E the Act and also under Section 420 read with Section 34, IPC. F The High Court, therefore, confirmed the ord.er passed by the trial Court and dismissed revisions of both the parties. The said order is challenged by the appellants-accused_ in present appeals. 12. On September 7, 2007, notice was issued by this Court. On February 22, 2008, the matters were ordered to be posted for final hearing on a non-miscellaneous day. That is how they are before us. G 13. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 14. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the trial Court and the High Court were right in discharging the accused for certain offences punishable under the Act ancj also H under the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934. The State has not f ,,. .... KURIACHAN CHACKO & ORS. v. STATE OF 619 - ) KERALA [C.K. THAKKER, J.] preferred appeal against the said order and the decision has A become final. He, however, contended that both the Courts were \ wrong in not discharging the accused for offences punishable under Sections 4 and 5 read with Sections 2(c) and 3 of the Act as also for an offence punishable under Section 420 read with ,,,ic• 4" Section 34, IPC. B 15. It was submitted that the scheme formulated by the appellants could not fall within the mischief of 'Money Circulation Scheme' as defined in clause (c) of Section 2 of the Act. If it is so, ban envisaged by Section 3 would not apply. Consequently, penal provisions of Sections 4 and 5 cannot be invoked. The c Courts below were wrong in observing that prima facie, the provisions of the Act got attracted and appellants could not be discharged. Moreover, for application of Section 415, IPC, there must be fraudulent and dishonest intention which was not " present in the instant case. Penalty provision of Section 420, D IPC had, therefore, no application. Even there, the Courts were wrong in framing charge against the accused. 16. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, supported the order passed by the trial Court and conE firmed by the High Court. It was submitted that both the Courts ' considered the relevant provisions of law, requisite ingredients under the Act and formed a prima facie opinion that the scheme in question was covered by definition clause 2(c) (Money Cir- ""' culation Scheme) and the case was required to be gone into by ~ a competent Court. Likewise, the Courts below observed that F there was 'cheating' as defined in Section 415, IPC and the accused could not be discharged. No fault can be found against the approach adopted by both the Courts and the appeals deserve to be dismissed. 17. Before we deal with the merits of the matter and reaG ""' .. saning of the Courts below, it would be appropriate if we refer to the relevant provisions of the Act. 18. The Preamb:Q of 1978 Act declares that it has been enacted "to ban the promotion or conduct of prize chits and H 620 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 10 S.C.R. A money circulation schemes and for matters connected therewith and incidental thereto". B 19. Section 2 is legislative dictionary and defines certain terms. The phrase 'Money Circulation Scheme' is defined in clause (c) which reads as under; (c) "money circulation scheme" means any scheme, by whatever name called, for the making of quick or easy money, or for the receipt of any money or valuable thing as the consideration for a promise to c pay money, on any event or contingency relative or -applicable to the enrolment of members into the scheme, whether or" not such money or thing is derived from the entrance money of the members of such scheme or periodical subscriptions; D 20. The definition is not simple. Judicial notice thereof had E F G been taken in the leading decision of this Court in State of West Bengal v. Swapan Kumar Guha, (1982) 1 SCC 561. Chandrachud, C.J. after taking note of legislative drafting, reshaped and rearranged Section 2(c) thus; 'money circulation scheme' means any scheme, by whatever name called, (i) for the making of quick or easy money, or (ii) for the receipt of any money or valuable thing as the consideration for a promise to pay money, on any event or contingency relative or applicable to the . enrolment, of members into the scheme, whether or not such money or thing is derived from the entrance money of the members of such scheme or periodical subscriptions; 21. Section 3 bans money circulation schemes or enrolment as member to any such scheme or participation in such scheme. Sections 4 and 5 are penal provisions and prescribe H punishment. Section 6 deals with offences committed by Com- .._ i l( - J_ KURIACHAN CHACKO & ORS. v. STATE GF 621 KERALA [C.K. THAKKER, J.] ... ) panies. Section 7 authorizes Police Officer not below the rank A of officer in charge of a police station to exercise power to enter and search premises and to seize things used for such scheme. Section 8 provides for forfeiture of newspaper .and publication containing money circulation scheme. Section ·9 .--r declares that no Court inferior to the Court of Chief Metropoli18 1, tan Magistrate or Chief Judicial Magistrate shall try any offence punishable under the Act. All offences punishable under the Act haveibeen made cognizable under Section 10. Section 11 grants exemption ·from the operation of the Act to certain money circulation schemes. ~ 22. From ithe perusal of the above provisions, it is dear that the Act prohibits 'money circulation scheme'. The main question, therefore, ·is whether the scheme in question is a 'money circulation scheme' covered by the Act? 23. In Swapan Kumar Guha, this Court had an occasion ID to consider the .provisions of the Act. Interpreting the connotation 'Money Circulation Scheme' and speaking for the majority, iChandrachud, C.J. 1observed: "Commas or no commas, and howsoever thoughtfully one IE may place them ·if they are to be there, I find it impossible to take Clause 1(c)to:mean that any and every activity ''.for the making of quick or easy money" is comprehended within its scope. iF.or •the matter of that, I cannot ibelieve ,.,;. any law to ban ·every kind ,of activity for making quick ·Or :F .._ easy money, without·more,1on;pain of.penal consequences. It is fartoo vague and.arbitrary to·prescribe-that "whosoever makes quick or1easy.money shall~be1liable tO'be:punished with fine or imprisonment".·For:then, in;the.absence ofany demarcation of 'l~gitimate mon~y rmakin_g .activities lf(om ~ those which ,fall within1the1ban, itherquestion,whether1the - 'I penal 1provision ·is attracted in a ·given tCase •Wifl ,de;p~nd . upon:the wilLand1temper, ·sweet.or sour, of;the,m~gistra~y. :Besides, •speakif!g of·law .and imorals, .it.does ,not.seem morally ,just ·or .proper :to :say 1th at, no person shall 1make !'71 622 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 10 S.C.R. ( ,. .. A quick or easy money, especially quick. A person who makes quick money may do so legitimately by the use of . his wits and wisdom and no moral turpitude may attach to it. One need not travel after to find speaking examples of ,, this. Indeed, there are honourable men (and now women) B in all professions recognised traditionally as noble, who ~ make quite quick money by the use of their talents, acumen and experience acquired over the years by dint of hard work and industry. A lawyer who charges a thousand rupees for a Special Leave Petition lasting five minutes (that is as c far as a Judge's imagination can go}, a doctor who charges a couple of thousands for an operation of tonsillitis lasting ten minutes, an engineer, an architect, a chartered accountant and other professionals who charge likewise, ~· cannot by any stretch of imagination be brought into the \ D drag-net of Clause (c). Similarly, there are many other vocations and business activities in which, of late, people ~ have been notoriously making quick money as, for example, the builders and real estate brokers. I cannot accept that the provisions of Clause (c) are directed E against any of these categories of persons. I do not suggest that law is powerless to reach easy or quick money and if it wills to reach it, it can find a way to do it. But the point of the matter is that it will verge upon the ludicrous to say that the weapon devised by law to ban the making of quick or easy money is the provision contained in Section i....: F 2(c) of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes -* (Banning) Act". 24. Explaining the ambit and scope of the expression 'Money Circulation Scheme', the Court proceeded to state; G "In order to give meaning and content to the definition of \ ~ the expression 'money circulation scheme' which is contained in Section 2(c) of the Act, one has, therefore, to t· look perforce to the adjectival Clause which qualifies the t ~ words "for the making of quick or easy money". What is H within the mischief of the Act is not "any scheme, by I,. A + KURIACHAN CHACKO & ORS. v. STATE OF 62~ KERALA [C.K. THAKKER, J.] whatever name called, for the making of quick or easy A money" simpliciter, but a scheme for the making of quick or easy money, "on any event or contingency relative or applicable to the enrolment of members into the scheme", (whether or not such money or thing is derived from the entrance money of the members of such scheme or their B periodical subscriptions). Two conditions must, therefore, be satisfied before a person can be held guilty of an offence under Section 4 read with Sections 3 and 2(c) of the Act. In the first place, it must be proved that he is promoting or conducting a scheme for the making of quick C or easy money and secondly, the chance or opportunity of making quick or easy money must be shown to depend upon an event or contingency relative or applicable to the enrolment of members into that scheme. The legislative draftsman could have thoughtfully foreseen and avoided 0 all reasonable controversy over the meaning of the expression 'money circulation scheme' by shaping its definition in this form; 'money circulation scheme' means any scheme, by whatever name called, E (i) for the making of quick or easy money, or (ii) for the receipt of any money or valuable thing as the consideration for a promise to pay money, on any event or contingency relative or applicable to the F enrolment, of members into the scheme, whether or not such money or thing is derived from the entrance money of the members of such scheme or periodical subscriptions; I have reshaped the definition, in order to bring out its G meaning clearly, without adding or deleting a single word or comma from the original text of Section 2(c). The substance of the matter is really not in doubt : only the form of the definition is likely to create some doubt as to the meaning of the expression which is defined and, therefore, H 624 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 10 S.C.R. I have made a formal modification in the definition without ·doing violence to its language and indeed, without even so much as altering a comma". 25. The Court observed that besides the prize chits, the "s Act aims at banning 'Money Circula.tion Scheme'. It is, therefore, necessary that the activity charged as falling within the + ~ · c D E F mischief of the Act, must be shown 'to be a part of the scheme l for making quick or easy money depending upon the happening or non-happening of an even·t or contingency relative or applicable to the enrolment of members into the scheme. 26. Referring to dictionary meanings, this Court proceeded to state; "Therefore, a transaction under which, one party deposits with the other or lends to that other a sum of money on promise of being paid interest at a rate higher than the agreed rate of interest cannot, without more, be a 'money circulation scheme' within the meaning of Section 2(c} of the Act, howsoever high the promised rate of interest may be in comparison with the agreed rate. What that section requires is that such reciprocal promises, express or implied, must depend for their performance on the happening of an event or contingency relative or applicable to the enrolment of members into the scheme. In other words, there has to be a community of interest in the happening of such event or contingency". (emphasis supplied) 27. On the facts of the case, the Court held that it was not a 'Money Circulation Scheme' and proceedings initiated against 'G the accused were liable to be dropped. 28. Strongly relying on Swapan Kumar Guha and the obser\tations of this Court,'the.leCJrned counsel for the appellants contended that the point is directly covered by the said deci- ·sion and the Courts below were not right in distinguishing it and iH in not discharging the.accused. ' t ( , KURIACHAN CHACKO & ORS. v. STATE OF 625 - 'f KERALA [C.K. THAKKER, J.] 29. We are unable to uphold the contention. We have A closely gone through Swapan Kumar Guha and in our opinion, the case is clearly distinguishable. This Court, in that case, reproduced First Information Report (FIR) in toto. The Court then .... + considered whether FIR pr~ma facie disclosed an offence un- ' der the Act. The Court analyzed FIR 'carefully, and even liberB ally' and came to the conclusion that the FIR against 'Sanchaita Investments' and its partners ('accused' in that case) made in respect of following allegations; (1) The firm had been offering fabulous interest@ 48% per annum to its members, which rate of interest c was later reduced to 36% per ~nnum; (2) Such high rate of interest was being paid even though the loan certificate receipts show that interest was "" liable to be paid at the rate of 12% per annum only; and D (3) The fact that interest was paid in excess of 12% shows clearly that a 'Money Circulation Scheme' was being promoted and conducted for the making of quick or easy money. E 30. The Court then proceeded to apply the provisions of (,. the Act to the allegations of prosecution against the accused. 1 _J According to the Court, the respondents did not allege, directly ._ or indirectly, that the firm was promoting or conducting a scheme for the making of quick or easy money, dependent on any event F or contingency relative or applicable to the enrolment of members into the scheme. Secondly, the FIR did not contain any allegation whatsoever that the persons who advanced or deposited their monies with the firm were participants of a scheme for the making of quick or easy money, dependent upon any G ~ ; such event or contingency. The Court noted the contention of the learned counsel for the prosecution that the accused were promoting or conducting a scheme for making quick or easy ' money. According to the Court, however, such argument could not be upheld since it was fallacious. It was observed in the H 626 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 10 S.C.R. A paragraph we have reproduced hereinabove that it would be arbitrary to hold that whoever makes 'quick dr easy money' should be punished. The Court noted some illustrative cases in which a person may be able to make 'quick or easy money'; for instance, a lawyer who charges a thousand rupees (in early B eighties, not now) fora Special Leave Petition lasting five minutes, a doctor who charges a couple of thousands for an operation of tonsillitis lasting ten minutes, an engineer, an a~chitect; a chartered accountant and other professionals who charge likewise. There are many other vocations and business activities c in which people notoriously make quick money, e.g. builders and real estate brokers. From that, however, one cannot jump to the conclusion that they are all liable to be punished under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act. 31. The Court also took into account, apart from FIR, a D detailed affidavit in reply filed in the High Court. Even in the said affidavit, there was no clear basis in respect of allegations, nor material was disclosed to show that prima facie, the firm was promoting or conducting a scheme for making quick or easy money which was dependent on any event or contingency E relative or applicable to the enrolment of members into the scheme. The 'song' of the State was that the scheme conducted by the accused would generate black money and would paralyze economy of the country. The Court was conscious and alive of seriousness of the problem and observed that unquestionF ably a private party could not be allowed to issue 'bearer bonds' by a back.door. At the same time, however, such activities should · · be curbed by the Government by taking appropriate action in accordance with law. But if the activity does not fall within the definition of 'money circulation scheme' within the meaning of G Section2(c) of the.Act, no prosecution can be launched against them. Thus, the second ingredient of Section 2(c) of the Act,. according to .the Court, was totally absent. . 32. In the instant case, both the essentials of Section 2(c) are present. The scheme provides for (i) making pf quick or H easy money, and (ii) it is dependant LIPOn an event or contin-: ,.. .. KURIACHAN CHACKO & ORS. v. STATE OF 627 "' 1 KERALA [C.K. THAKKER, J.] gency relative or applicable to the enrolment of members into A the scheme. As observed by us, a member would be entitled to double amount only after his enrolment, additional 14 members are enrolled in the scheme. The second ingredient, namely, such payment of money is dependant on the "event or continge~cy -I + relative or applicable to fhe enrolment of members into the B scheme" is thus very much present. Swapan Kumar Guha, therefore, in our considered opinion, does r19t apply and carry the case of the accused further. - 33. It was next contended that there is no obligation on the part of the unit holder to enlist/enroll more members into the c scheme and, therefore, the scheme does not attract Sectiqn 2(c). The contention has no force. Section 2(c) no where provides that a member of the scheme must himself enroll other members and only in that eventuality, the provision of the Act " would apply. The section does not provide for positive or domiD nant role to be played by a member of the scheme. In our opinion, the requirement of law is "an event or contingency relative or applicable to the enrolment of members into the scheme" and nothing more. The plain language of the section does not insist that such enrolment of members must be by the member$ E already enrolled. It is impossible to read into the statutory provi .. • sion such requirement which is not stipulated by Parliament. ., Upholding of the argument of the learned counsel would result in re-writing of the section, which is certainly not permissible in ..> our constitutional system. The event or contingency on the hap- ... F pening of which the amount would become payable must be relative or applicable to the enrolment of the members into the scheme. It is immaterial by whom such members are enrolled. It may be by members, by promoters or their agents or by gullible sections of the society suo motu (by themselves). The sole G consideration is that payment of money must be dependent on ~ an event or contingency relative or applicable to the enrolment of more persons into the scheme, nothing more, though nothing less. In the present case, the second ingredient is very much present. H SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 10 S.C.Ft fo.., 34. It was then contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that inJhe present case, all the promises have been foHiiled by the promoters and contract was complete inasmucti as for payment of Rs.625/-by the unit holder, he was given 3S l 1ottety tickets each of Rs.10/- and thus an amount of Rs.3:50/~ g, gets appropriated~ Likewise, for the balance amount of Rs.275/ - (Rs.625/~ - Rs.350/.'), he has been made subscriber of a maga· zine 'Thrikaiam'for one year. Nothing, therefore; remain.s to be d6ne thereafter by the promoters except the benefit which is· iii