Money doubling scam: Case against manager, marketing agent quashed

NT Correspondent

Bengaluru: The High Court of Karnataka has quashed the case against the manager and marketing agent of a company that was involved in a ‘money doubling’ scam, as these two were not party to the crime.

The High Court said there was no proof that these two conspired with the company's owners to cheat the public.

“In the absence of any material to establish that the petitioners herein as Manager and Marketing Agent connived with the other accused in inducing the depositors to invest the money with (the) Company and thereafter, did not return the profit with an intention to cheat, the continuation of the criminal proceedings will not sub[1] serve the ends of justice and would be abuse of the process of law,” Justice Hemant Chandangoudar said in his recent judgement on a batch of six petitions.

Mohan and Sudarshan, were accused numbers five and six who were charged under Section 420 (cheating) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning Act), Section 9 of the Karnataka Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act and Section 58B and 5A of the RBI Act.

The allegation was that the UNI PAY 2U Marketing Private Limited Company was a company registered in Chennai with a branch in Bengaluru.

The public was invited to invest in various schemes launched by it promising that the money invested would be doubled. People deposited Rs.2,03,29,500.

The accused owners of the company returned a sum of Rs.22,15,262 as profit to the investors but did not return the balance of Rs.1,80,94,238. Following complaints, the Magistrate had taken cognisance.

The HC which heard the petitions of Mohan and Sudarshan said, “The petitioners are not responsible for not returning the amount to the depositors and the responsibility is that of the Company and the Directors. There is no material in the charge sheet to substantiate that these petitioners who are the Manager and the Agent of accused No.1 – Company connived with the other accused in inducing the depositors to invest the money.”

The HC said there was no proof the two were cheating the public, and therefore the case could not be allowed to continue against them.

“Except for some witnesses who have stated that these petitioners induced several depositors, the essential elements to constitute the commission of cheating is conspicuously absent against these petitioners and the prosecution cannot be allowed to be continued in the absence of any material, only on the ground that they were the Manager and the Agent of the accused No.1 – Company which has allegedly cheated the depositors,” the HC said. (CrlP 2486/2022)