The Hon'ble Dr.Justice G.Jayachandran Crl.A.No.1819 of 2003
1. The Management Professionals Association, No.15, Ramanathan Street, T.Nagar, Chennai-17, Rep.by the Chairman Smt. Kumuda
2. S.Vasanthi, Executive Trustee of the Management Professionals Association, Old.No.25, New No.26, Krishna Street, T.Nagar, Chennai-17.
3. Kumuda .. Appellants /versus/ State rep.by Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBI-SPE, Chennai. .. Respondent Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374 of Criminal Procedure Code against the judgment dated 16.10.2003 in C.C.No.18 of 1996 on the file of the Court of Principal Sessions Judge at Chennai and prays that this Court may be pleased to set aside the same.
For Appellants :No appearance For Respondent :Mr.K.Srinivasan, Spl.PP for CBI Cases
J U D G M E N T
This appeal arises against the judgment of the learned Principal Sessions Judge at Chennai in C.C.No.18 of 1996, dated 16.10.2003.
2. The case of the prosecution is that, the 2nd accused J.Sudershan [since dead] along with the 3rd accused S.Vasanthi and the 4th accused Kumuda, had a conspiracy with an intention to cheat the public. Hence, they formed an Association under the name and style of “The Management Professionals Association”. Advertisement was issued in newspapers throughout the country in the name of Management Professions Association that degrees like MBA, M.Tech, Ph.D and M.B.B.S, etc., from foreign Universities can be procured by them. Accordingly, attracted by their advertisement, gullible persons have parted away their money and later found be cheated. Few such persons are V.K.Radhakrishnan, Vilas Lokhand Wala, K.P.Ramakrishnan, Ranjit Singh and P.R.Ramesh. The total amount of money cheated by them from these gullible persons runs to around Rs.1,10,000/-. In the course of such conspiracy, they have printed forged degrees of Foreign University and have issued the degrees to them.
3. The prosecution, after registration of the case against these persons, on completion of investigation, have filed a final report against these accused for the alleged offence under Sections 120B, 420 and 471 r/w 468 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial Court, after perusing the final report, framed the charge against the 1st accused Company floated by the other three accused viz., the 2nd accused [J.Sudershan], 3rd accused[S.Vansanthi] and 4th accused [Kumuda], for an offence under Section 120B, 420 and 471 r/w 468 IPC. The 2nd accused [J.Sudershan] died during the course of trial. Thereafter, the 1st accused Association has been administrated by the 4th accused [Kumuda] as Chairman of the Association. The 3rd accused is one of the Executive Trustees of the 1st accused Association. The registration of the 1st accused Association is spoken to by PW-1[Tr.Mani], Assistant attached to the Sub Register Office and PW-2 [J.Vellaisamy]. PW4[Manoharan] has deposed about conducting symposium for the said fake Association to show as if the Association is a genuine Association involved in imparting education and granting degrees. The said symposium has been witnessed by PW-16[Tr.Balaramiah] wherein the study materials printed by the Association has been spoken to by PW-9[Tr.Raghavan] and PW-10[Tr.Nagarajan], who were the Proprietors of printing press. Some books printed by these accused persons identified by these Proprietors are marked as Exs.P3 to P6. Staff employed by these accused persons were examined by the prosecution as PW-11 [Tr.Jeevanandam], PW-14[Tr.Ramachandran], PW-15 [Tr.Balasubramanian] and PW-16 [Tr.Balaramiah] and they have spoken about the activities of the accused persons. The prosecution has positively proved through PW-8[Tr.J.J.Bennet], Chairman of Indian Aluminium of World University, who has spoken that there is no Stanton University as claimed by the accused offering degree. PW-24 [Tr.Geetha Nair], the Regional Officer of U.S.A. Educational Foundation in India had spoken to the fact that there was no Stanton University in U.S.A. Thus, the prosecution has clearly proved that the offer made by the accused persons through the newspaper advertisement was false and fake one.
4. While so, the trial Court, on appreciating all these evidences has imposed the following punishment. The 1st accused the Management Professionals Association represented by [Smt.Kumada] to pay a fine of Rs.45,000/-, the 3rd accused[S.Vasanthi] to undergo sentence for 3 years RI for the offence under Section 120B IPC and 3 years RI for the offence under Section 420 IPC and to undergo sentence for 3 years RI for the offence under Section 471 r/w 468 IPC. Insofar as the 4th accused[Kumuda] who is the 3rd appellant in this appeal similar sentence has been imposed.
5. After payment of fine amount, these appellants have secured bail from the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Thereafter, when this matter was listed for hearing, there was no representation for them. Hence, notices were sent to the appellants to their last known residence, but were returned as “left”. To take further action, this Court directed the trial Court to forward the report along with available records regarding the bail granted to the appellants and the sureties furnished by them. The matter has been adjourned time to time for want of report from the trial Court. It is ascertained from the trial Court that the records are not available and they are searching for it. In any event, the appellants herein who have engaged the counsel to file the appeal and obtained bail have not come forward to substantiate the grounds of the appeal raised by them challenging the impugned judgment. Hence, this Court has no other way except to peruse the records and pass orders on merits.
6. Accordingly, this Court ventures to proceed with the matter.
The prime attack on the impugned judgment is that there cannot be a meeting of minds between the accused 2 to 4 and the 1st accused Association. Whereas, it is only an artificial entity and cannot be fastened with any mens rea. When the evidence relied on by the prosecution solely indicates that except the 2nd accused, who died, other accused ought not to have been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment, since the appellants are women folk with no mens rea and they were not offered proper legal aid by the trial Court, that the trial court ought to have been conducted by the X Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai, but had been conducted by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai thereby depriving the appellants an opportunity to prefer appeal before the Sessions Court instead of approaching the High Court.
7. This Court finds no force in any of the grounds raised by the appellants. The 1st accused is a juristic body, as pointed out that it is an artificial entity consisting of the 2nd accused J.Sudershan (since dead), the 3rd accused[S.Vasanthi] and the 4th accused [Kumuda]. When a juristic body operated through men with blood and flesh is liable for prosecution by arraying the Association as an accused, no way, it prejudices the accused persons who are in the helm of affairs of the Managing of the 1st accused Association. The charge against these appellants is that they have floated the Association, made fake and false claim alleging that they are representative of stanton university, U.S.A., and capable of getting degrees from that Association. Whereas the prosecution has established that there is no such University in the name of Stanton University in U.S.A. This fact is spoken to through PW-8[Tr.J.J.Bennet] and PW-24[Tmt.Geetha Nair]. PW-13[Tr.Radhakrishnan], PW-25[Tr.Vilas Lokhantwala], PW- 27[Tr.Ranjit Singh] were examined on behalf of the prosecution and they have spoken about, how these appellants cheated them. When there is overwhelming evidence against these appellants, the judgment of the trial Court cannot be faulted on the ground that the appellants were not given adequate legal assistance.
8. No doubt, the judgment reflects that these persons appeared as party-in-person, but the deposition of the prosecution witnesses PW-1 to PW-29 reveals that the appellants have effectively cross examined the witnesses. Furthermore, when the parties are confident enough to conduct the case themselves and not sought for any legal aid to assist them, the Court should not volunteer itself to offer legal aid. Further more, with regard to the conduct of the appellants, this Court could see that they have filed this appeal and obtained bail from the Hon'ble Supreme Court, they have not turned up despite notice and all efforts taken by this Court offering opportunity to them to present their case either through counsel, had not taken any interest to appear before this Court and conduct the case.
9. In such circumstances, the parties have failed to avail the opportunity of being heard, should be presumed to be dis-interested in pursuing the appeal. Hence, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed on merits as stated above.
17.11.2017 ari Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Speaking order/non speaking order To
1. The Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases, High Court, Madras.
2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBI-SPE, Chennai.
Dr.G.Jayachandran,J.
ari
Crl.A.No.1819 of 2003
17.11.2017