Holding

The investigation was without jurisdiction and must be quashed because the FIR did not disclose any offence under the Act.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined whether the FIR lodged against Sanchaita Investments and its partners disclosed a cognizable offence under the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978. The firm accepted public deposits at a nominal 12% interest but paid excess interest of up to 48% in cash, prompting the State to allege a "money circulation scheme". The Court held that the statutory definition of a money circulation scheme requires the scheme to depend on an event or contingency related to member enrolment, which the FIR did not allege. Consequently, no offence was prima facie disclosed, and the police had no jurisdiction to investigate. The investigation was quashed, and seized documents and cash were to be retained for two months before return. The appeals were dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the FIR discloses a cognizable offence under Section 3 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978.
Whether the activities of Sanchaita Investments constitute a "money circulation scheme" within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Act.
Whether the police may commence investigation under Section 157 of the Criminal Procedure Code when the FIR does not disclose an offence.
Whether the search and seizure conducted under Section 7 of the Act were lawful.
How penal statutes should be interpreted, particularly the rule of strict construction versus the plain language test.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 154, s. 156, s. 157, s. 159, s. 173, s. 190
Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978s. 12, s. 13, s. 2(c), s. 2(e), s. 3, s. 4, s. 7
Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934s. 54(c)

Subjects

Money circulation schemePrize chitCognizable offenceFIRCriminal Procedure CodeSearch and seizureStrict construction of penal statutesBlack moneyDeposit schemeStatutory interpretation

Judgment

•

121 A

'STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.
v.
_SWAPAN KUMAR GUHA & ORS.
B
February 2, 1982
, [ Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, C.J. A. VARADARAJAN, AND
\
,..- )- AMARBNDRA NATH SBN, JJ.]

Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme1 (Banning) Act 1978 (43of1978)
c
Ss. 2(c), 2(e), 3, 7 and 13-'Money Circulation Scheme'-What is-Firm Accept-
ing deposits from public-Payment of interest at 48% per annnm though deposit
receipt indiCate only 12%-ll'hether promotion of'money circulation scheme'-
'Whethe~ 'offence' committed under the Act.

· Criminal Procedure Code 1973, S.154, 156, 157-F.l,R.-Cognlzable offence- D
Necessity of disclosure-No cognizable offence disclosed-Court justified in quash-
ing the investigation.

Cri-fninal Trial-F.I.R.-Condition precedent to com~ncement cf investiga.
lion-Police have no unfettered discretion to commence investigation-Power to
investig'!le to be exercised as-provided in Cr. P.C.
E
Interpretation of Statutes-Rule of strict interpretation ofpenal statutes-
Whether affects primary test that language used in enactment when clear and plain
to apply.

Words & Phrases-' Money circulation scheme'-What is-Meaning of.

The firm 'Sanchaita Investments', commenced its busines·s on July 1,1975, F
its three partners, the three respondents in the appeal contributii;ig a total capital
of Rs. 7,000/-. The firm carried on business as financers and investors and in
its business the firm accepted loans or deposits from the general public for
different periods repayable with interest af 12% per annum. Under the terms
of deposits, the depositors had a right to withdraw the deposit with the firm at
any time. In case of premature withdrawal the depositors were to Jose interest
of 1%. Under the terms and conditions -of the Cli;:posit the firm had also the G
liberty to repay the amount with interest to any depositor at any time before the
expiry of the stipulated period of deposit without giving any reason. The firm
was carrying on its business on a very extensive scale.

In the year 1978 Parliament passed the Prize Chits and Money Circulation
Schemes (Banning) Act 1978. The Act !came info force on December 13, 1978 H
and section 12 provided a two years period ~for winding up ~verr k~nd. o~ bu.sin~~~
relating to prize chits and money circulat(Q!\ ~cb_emes •.
122 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1982) 3 S.C-R.

A Oo 13th December, 1980 the Commercial Tax Officer lodged a complaint
of violation of the Act by the firm with the police. The FIR stated that the firm
bad been offering fabulous interest at 48% per ~annum to its members, later
reduced to 36% though the loan certificate receipts showed the rate of interest
to be 12% only. The amount In excess of 12% clearly indicated that the 1Money
Circulation Scheme' was being promoted and conducted for the making of
quick and/or easy money and that prizes and for gifts in cash were also awarded
B to agents, promoters and members, and that the firm and its three partners in
conducting such ~oney circulation schemes had violated section 3 of the Act and
were therefore punishable under section 4. On the ·same day tbJ office of the
firm was searched by the police and a sum of Rs. 42 1akhs was recovered. The
residences of the partners were also searched and large amounts of cash as well

c.
· as documents were seized. Certain lists of agents seized during the investigation
showed that code numbers were a~signed to many of the agents and that the
agents had acquired large properties at various places and had also started; new
.,
)

business activities. The partners were arrested and enlarged on bail.

The firm and its partners filed a writ petition in the High Court challeng-
ing the validity of the F.l.R. and the proceedings arising out of it including the
Validity· of the searches and seizure of docuinents, papers and cash. It was
D contended that the F.I.R. does~not disclose any offence under the Act which does
not apply to the firm and that there was no violation of any provisions of the
Act. The petition was contested by the State Government contending that the
payment of interest .by the fir 1n and its partners at the clandestine rate of 36%
against the bank rate of. 12% in the context of the scheme promoted and conduc-
ted by the firm was tantamount to arr activity which was banned under tb.e Act.
and that in the process of its working, the scheme of the firm generated quick
E and easy money so as to render such scheme ilr arrangement a 'mo~ey circulation
scheme' within the meaning or the Act. The High Court held that the Act did
not apply to the firm and that the searches a·nd seizure:) were wrongful, illegal
and improper and quashed the pro::eedings and directed the return or all docu-
ments and the refund,of the cash seized.

F
In the appeals to. this Court it was contended on behalf of the State
Government that: (t) the question of applicability of the Act will only come up
for consideration after the investigation has been completed and all relevant
materials have been gathered on sOoh investigation and that at the investigation
stage, the Court does not interfere and also does not quash any proceedings
before the investigation has been comoleted, (2) materials which had been
G gathered as a result of the inve.stigation indicate that though the loan certificate
s1i~ulate interest to be paid@ 12% much larger sum by way of interest ranging
between 36@ to 48% was actually paid to the depositors, in cash in a clandestine
manner, depriving and defrauding the revenue of its legitimate dues, (3) the
nature of business carried on by the tirm indicates that the firm is conducting a
'Money circulation scheme' thereby violating s. 3 of the Act, and (4) tbe s.earches
H have been carried out in accordance with s. 7 of the Act and the cash money
and other books and do~uJ!lel\IS have peen !awfully seized ·-
WEST BENGAL v. SWAPAN KUMAR 123

On behalf of the respondents it was contended that : (I) Investigation
A
has to be done when an offence is disclosed for collecting materials for establish ..
ing an offence and any investigation when no offence is·disclosed by the F.I.R.
and the other materials, means unnecessary harassment for the firm and its
partners and illegal and improper deprivation of their liberty and property, (2)
even if all the aitegations in the F.l.R. and in the a·ther materials before the
Court are accepted to be correct, the said allegation do not go to show that the
firm is conducting a money circulation scheme and do Iiot disclose any offence
B.
under the Act, (3) if 'no offence under the Act is disclosed and the Act has no
application, there cannot be any qqestion of any search or seizure under the Act,
and (4) to be a chit fund or a rnon~y circulation scheme, an element of uncer·
tainty or luck is essential and in so far as the transactions carried on by the firm
are concerned, the said element is nowhere.
.C
Dismissing the-appeals.

HELD : By the Court

1. The investigation which has been commenced upon the First Infor-
mation Report is without jurisdiction and must, therefore, be quashed. No
further investigation shall take place in pursuance or on the basis of the F.I.R. D.
dated December 13, 1980 lodged by the Commercial Tax Officer, Bureau of
Investigation. [143 DJ

2. The documents, books, papers, cash and other articles seized during
the investigation shall be retained by the police in their custody for a period of
two months and will be returned, on the expiry of that period, to persons from E
whom they were seized. [148 CJ
r
[Per Chandrachud, C.J. and Varadarajan J.]

1. Two conditions must be satisfied before a person can be held guilty
of an.offence under sectioD. 4 read with sections 3 and 2 (c) of the Act. In the F
first place, it must be proved that he is promoting or conducting a scheme for
the making of quick or easy money and secondly, the chance or opportuitity of
rn'aking quick or easy mon~y must be shown to depend upon an event or
contingency relative or applicable to the enrolment of members into that
scheme. [132 F-G]

2. Besides the prize chits, what the Act aims at banning is money G
circulation schemes. The activity charged as falling within the mischief of the
Act must be shown to be a part of a scheme for making quick or easy money,
dependent upon the happening or non-happening Qf any event or contingency
relative or applicatle to the enrolment of members into that scheme. [133 E-FJ

3. A transaction under which, one party deposits with the other or ff
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 circu·
si.Ji>RllMil coultt RilPoitrs [1982) 3s.c.li..

A lation scheme' within the moaning of section 2 (c) of tho Act, howsoever high the
promised rate of interest may. be in comparison with the agreed rate. What
section 2 (c) requires is that the reciprocal promises, express or implied, must
depend for their performance on the happening of an event or contingency
relative or appJicable to the enrolment of meip.bers into the scheme. [134 A-BJ,

In the instant case it seems impossible to bold on the basis of the
B allegations in the F.I.R. that any offence can be said to be made out primafacie
under section 3 of the Act. In the first place, the F.I·.R. does 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 or contingency relative
or applicable to the enrolment of members into the scheme. Secondly, the F.l.R.
does not contain any all~gation whatsoever that persons who advanced or

c deposited their monies with the firm were participants of a scheme for the making
of quick or easy money, dependent upon any such event or contingency. The
F.I.R bears the stamp of hurry and want of care. It seems to assume, that it
is enough for the purposes of section 2 (c) .to show that the accused is promoting
·or cond~cting a scheme for the making of quick or easy money, an assumption
which is fallacious. An essential ingrediCnt of section 2 (c) is that the scheme
for making quick or easy money must be dependent on any event Or contingency
relative or applicable to the enrolment of members into tho scheme. [13S D·G]

4. A First Information Report which does not allege or disclose that the
essential requirem~nts of the penal provision are prima facie satisfied, cannot
form the foundation or constitute the starting point of a lawful investigation.
[13$ O]

E 5. -There is no allegation even in any of the affidavits filed on behalf of
the State and its officers that the depositors and the promoters are animated by
.a community of interest in the matter of the sch~me being dependent upon any
event or contingency relative or applicable to the enrolment of members into it.
That being an essential ingredient of the offence charged, it cannot be said in
the absence of any allegation whatsoever in that behalf, that there is "reason to
suspect" the commission of that offence within the meaning of section 157 of ~
F the Code of Criminal Procedure, so as to justify the investigation undertaken by --- -
the State authorities. [138 B-D]

6. The rule of strict interpretation of penal sta_tutes does not lo any ___ ... __
way affect the fundamental principle of interpretation, that the primary test
which can safely be applied is thc_language used in the Act and, when the words
are clear and plain, the court must· accept the expressed intention of the
G legislature. 1.139 Bl

7. The investigation can be quashed if no cognizable offence is disclosed
by the F .I.R. The judiciary should not interfere with the police in matters which
are within their province. It is surely not within the province of the police to
H investigate into a Report which does not disclose the commission of a cognizable ·..;.-
offence and the CQde does not impose upon them the duty of inquiry in such
cases. [142 B·C]
WEST BSNOAL v. SWAPAN KUMAR 125

8. The condition precedent to the commencement of investigation under
section 157 or the Code is that the F.I.R. must disclose, prima facie, that a
cognizable offence has been committed. It is wrong to suppose that the police
have an unfettered discretion to commence investigation under section 157 of the
Code. Their right of inquiry is conditioned by the existence of reason to suspect
the commission of a cognizable offence ·and they cannot, reasonably, have

) reason so to suspect unless the .F .I.R. prim a facie, discloses the commission of
such offence. If that condition is satisfied, the investigation must go on. The
Court bas then no power to stop the investigation, for to do sO would be to
B

trench upon the lawful power of the police to investigate into cognizable offences
On the other hand, if the F.I.R. does not disclose the commission of a cognizable
offence, the Court would be justified In quashing the investigation on the basis of
the information as laid or received. (142 D-F]

W.H. King v. R<public of India [1952] SCR 418, 424; M.V. Joshi v. M.U. c
Shimpi, [1961] (3) SCR 986, 993-994; R.P. Kapur v. The State of Punjab [1960] (3)
SCR 388, 392-393; S.N. Sharma v. Bipen Kumar Tiwari [t970] (3) SCR 946; Stat•
of West &ngal v. S.N. Basak [1963] (2) SCR 52; Jehan Singh v. Delhi Adminis-
tration [1974) (3) SCR 794 and King-Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmed 11 I.A. 203,
~~.·. rererred to.
'\ D
9. The power to investigate into cognizable offences must-be exercised
strictly on the coµdition on which it is granted by the Code. [ 142 G]

Prabhu Dayal Deorah v. The District Magistrate, Kamrup, (1974] 2 SCR
12, 22-23, rererred to.

10. The State Government, the Central Government and the Reserve
Bank or India must be given a reasonable opportuility to see if it is possible, E
under the law, to institute . an inquiry into the affairs of the firm and in the
meanwhile to regulate its affairs. Such a step is essential in the interests of
countless small depositors who, otherwise will be ruined by being deprived of
their !ire's savings. (147 H; 148 A-BJ

[Per A.N. Sen, J.]
F
1. Once an offence is disclosed, an investigation into the offence must
necessarily follow in the interest of justice. If, howei.:er, no offence is_disclosed,
an investigation cannot be permitted, as any investigation, in the absence of any
offence being disclosed, will result in unDcceSsary harassment to a party, whose
liberty and property may be put to jeopardy for nothing. Tho liberty and
property or any individual are s8.cred and sacrosanct and the Court zealously G
guards them and protects them. An- -investigation· is carried on for the purpose
or gathering necessary materials for establishing and proving an offence which is
disclosed. When an offence is djsclosed, a proper investigation in the interest of
justice becomes necessary to collect - materials for establishing the offence, and
for bringing the offender to book. In the absence or a proper investigation in a
case where an offence is disclosed, the offender may succeed in escaping from the· H
consequences and the offender tnay go unpunished to the deteriment or the cause
or justlce and the society at large. (170 F-H; 171 A]
126 SUPREME COiiRt REPORTS {1982] 3 s.c.R.
A 2. Justice ·requires that a person who commits ·an offence has to be
brought to book and must be punished for the same. If the Court interferes
with the proper investigation in a case where an, offence has been disclosed, the
offence will go unpunished to the serious deteriment of the welfare of the societt
and the cause of the justice suffers. It is on the basis of this principle that the
Court normally does not interfere with the investigation of a case where an
offence has been disclosed. [171 A·C]
B

3. Whether an offence has been discloi;ed or not must necessarily
depend on the facts and circumstances of each particular case. In considering
whether an offence into which an investigation is made or to be made is disclosed
or not, the Court has mainly to take into consideration the complaint of the
F.I.R. and the Court ·may in appropriate cases take into consideration the
c relevant facts and circumstances of the case. On a consideration of all the
. relevant materials, the Court has to come to the conclusion whether an offence is
disclosed or not. If on a consideration of the relevant materials, the Court is
satisfied that the offence is disclosed the Court will normally not interfere with
the investigation into the offence and wiH generally allow the investigation into
the offence to be completed for collecting materials for prciving the offence. If,
on the other hand the Court on a consideration of the relevant materials is
D satisfied that no offence is disclosed, it will be the duty of the Court to interfere
with any investigation and to stop the same to prevent any kind of uncalled for
and unnecessary harassment to an individual. [171 G-H; 172 A-BJ

W.H. King v. Republic of India [1952) SCR 418, 424; M.V. Joshi v. M.U.
Shimp/, [1961] (3) SCR 986, 99J.994; R.P. Kapur v. The State of Punjab [1960] (3)
E SCR 388,392-393; S.N. Sharma v. Bipen Kumar Tiwari [1970)(3) SCR 946; State of
West Benga/v. S.N. Bosak [1963] (2) SCR 52; Jehan Singh v. Delhi Administration
[1974] (3) SCR 794 and King-Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmed 711.A. 203.
referred to.

4. The word 'scheme' has not been defined in the Act. It has however,
F has been defined in tbe Rules. Cl. 2 (g) of the Rules state that a "scheme means
a mOney circulation scheme or as the case may be a prize chit as defined in cl.
-(c) and (e) respectively ofs. 2", The word 'scheme' as contemplated ins. 2 (c)
of the Act is therefore, to be money circulation scheme witbin the meaning of
the Act. To be money circulation scheme, a scheme must be for the making of
quick or easy n1oney on· any event or contingency relative or applicable to the
cnrolinent of the members into the scheme. The scheme has necessarily to be
G judged as a whole, both from the view point of the promoters and also of the
members. [181 B-D]

In the instant case investment of monies with the firm have been made
with the expectation of getting interest@ 48% and a big part of in black in a
H clandestine ·manner. The transaction cannot be considered to be a scheme for
1he making of quick or easy money, though it may offend against revenue laws
or any other law. Transactions in black money do not come within the Mischief
WEST BBN'GAL V. SWAPAN' KUMAR 127

of this Act. Judged from the point of vie_w of the depositors, it cannot, there- A
fore, be said that their investment in the firm ror high return by way of interest
part of which is above board and a part of which is clandestine, wil1 form any
part of a scheme for making easy or quick money, [181 D-H; 182 A-Bl

5. There is nothing to ind icatc that the firm makes any investment in
consultation with its depositors. The materials indicatP. that the firm indulges in
high risk investments and also advances moni~s to political parties. Neither of B
these acts are illegal and do not go to show that the firm inakes easy or quick
money. The materials however show that the firm pays a larger amount by way
of interest than payable on the basis of the rates stipulated in the Joan certificate
and the excess amount of interest is paid to the depositor in a clandestine
manner. This does not, in any way, indicate the exi~tence of any scheme for
making quick or easy.money. [182 C-EJ
c
In the instant case the requirements of a money circulation scheme are
not satisfied. As there is no money circulation scheme. there can be no scheme
as contemplated in the Act in view of the definition of scheme in the Rules. The
materials, appear to disclose violation of revenue laws. The materials do Dot dis-
close that the firm is promoting or circulating money circulation scheme and the
question, therefore, of any'violation of s. 3 of the Act does not arise. L182 G-H]
D
'
In the instant case as the firm is not conducting or promoting a money
circulation scheme. and as no case is made that the firm is conducting or pro-
moting a chit fund, the Act cannot be said to be applicable to the firm. [183 A]

6. As no offence under the Act is at all disclosed, it will be manifestly
unjust to allow the process of criminal code to be issued or continued against
the firm and to allow any investigation which will be clearly without any E
authority. [184 E] '

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1129 of
1981.

(Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated F
the 12th March, 1981 of the Calcutta High Court in Matter No.
37 of 1981.

AND

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1130 OF 1981 G

(Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated
the 5th March, 1981 of the Calcutta High Cout in Matter No. 2829
of 1980)
H
Somnath Chatterjee, M. K. Ramamurthi, S, C. Birla, for the
Appellants in C,J\, J129/81 11n\! .C.J\, 1130/81
128 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1982) 3 s.c.R.
A A.K. Sen, (For r.I in CA. 1130/81) S. S. Ray, (For r.2 in
CA. 1130/81), Kapil Sibal, (For'r.1 in C.A. 1129/SI), B. Gupta &
T.K. Bose, (for r,I in CA. 1130/81) and Rathin Das with them.

S.S. Ray, (For r. 6), Tarun Kumar Bose, D. Manda/, Miss Bina
Gupta & 0.P. Khaitan with him for Respondents Nos. 5 & 6 in the
B Appeals:

K.L. Hat hi & Mrs. H. Wa hi for the Intervener-Mrs. Sarla
Sahedad Puri.

The following judgments were del.ivered :
c
CHANDRACHUD, c. J, My learned Brother A.N. Sen has dealt
fully with the various points argued before us. I agree respectfully
with his judgment, but desire to add a few words in view of the
importance which this matter has acquired by reason of the· immense
circulation of 'black money' clearly and almost concededly involved
D in the affairs of the firm which i.s facing a prosecution.

These appeals by special leave arise out of the judgment
dated March 5, 198 l of a learned single Judge of the Calcutta
E High Court in Matters Nos. 2829 of 1980 and 37 of 1981. The
appeals are, in substance, by the State of West Be.ngal while the
contesting respondents are a firm called 'Sanchaita Investments'
and its three partners, Swapan Kumar Guha, Sambhu Prasad
Mukherjee and Beharilal Muratka. The two Matters in the Cal-
cutta High Court were in the nature of w~it petitions under article
F 226 of the Conititution which were fileJ bt the firm and its part·
ners for quashing an investigation commenced against the firm.
Allowing the writ petitions, the High Court issued a writ of Manda·
mus directing the State Government and its concerned officers to
"forthwith recall, cancel and withdrew the First Information Report
.. and all proceedings taken on the basis thereof", since the sear-
G ches, seizures and arrests made in pursuance of the said F.I.R. are,
according to the High Court, illegal and without jurisdictioti. It
has directed that the books, documents and moneys seized during
the search be returned to the firm and its partners, including a sum
of Rs. 52,11,930.
H
The short question for consideration in these appeals by special
leave is whether the f'.I.R. lod~ed by the Commercial Tax Officer,
WEST BENGAL v. SWAPAN KUMAR (Chandrachud, c. J.) 129

Bureau of Investigation, against the firm and its partners discloses A
an offence under section 3 of "The Prize Chits and Money Circula-
tion Schemes (Banning) Act", 43 of 1978. The Act, which was
passed by the Parliament, came into force on December 13, 1978
and the two years' period allowed by section 12 for winding up
every kind of business relating to Prize Chits and Money Circula-
3
tion Schemes expired on December 12, 1980. The F.I.R., which
was lodged the next day .on December 13. reads thus :

~ '>- "To
The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Bureau of Investigation,
c
10, Madan Street,
Calcutta-72.

Sir, D
On a secret information that 'Sanchaita Investments'
of 5-6, Fancy Lane, Calcutta, is carrying on business of
promoting and/or conducting prize chit and/or money
circulation scheme enrolling members of such chit and/or
scheme, participating in those, and/or receiving and remit- E
ting monies in pursuance of such chits and/or scheme in
violation of the provisions of. the Prize Chits and Money
Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978, inquiry was
held secretly to verify correctness or otherwise of the
aforesaid secret information. · Enquiry reveals that the
said 'Sanchaita Investments' is a partnership firm, partners F
being Shri Bihari Prasad Murarka, Shri Sambhu Mukherjee
and Shri Swapan Kumar Guba and that it was floated in
or around 1975. Enquiry further reveals. that the said
firm bad been offering fabulous interest @ 48% per annum
to its members until very recently. The rate of interest
has of tare been reduced to 36% per annum. Such high G
rates of interest were and are being paid even though the
loan certificate receipts show the rate of interest to be 12%
only. Thus, the amount in excess of 12% so paid clearly
sb9ws that the 'Money Circulation Scheme' is being pro-
moted and conducted for the making of quick and/or easy
money. Prizes and/or gifts in cash were and are also
awarded to agents, prornQt~rs and members too,
130 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1982] 3 S.C.R.

A In view of the a hove, Sarvashri Bihari Prasad Murarka,
Sambhu Mukherjee and Swapan Kumar Guba appear to
have been carrying on business in the trade name of
Sanchaita Investments' in prize chits and money circula-
tion scheme in violation of section 3 of the Prize Chits and
Money Circulation Schemes \(Banning) Act, 1978 and are
B therefore, punishable under section 4 of the said Act.
Necessary action may therefore, be kindly taken against
the afores~id offenders along with other accomplices as
provided in the law. '

Yours faithfully,
c Sd/-
Commercial Tax Officer, '
Bureau of Investigation." " •
Section 4 of the Act provides that whoever contravences the i'"
D provisions of section 3 shall be punishable with imprisonment for
a term which may extend to three years, or with fine which may ,_•
extend to five thousand rupees, or with both, provided that in the
absence of special and adequate reasons to the contrary to be men-
.
f.
tioned in the judgment of the court, the imprisonment shall not
be less than one year and the fine shall not be less than one thou- flI
E sand rupees. Though the F.I.R. is riddled with the "and/or" i

clauses more appropriate in deeds of conveyancing, it is clear from I'·
~
its tenor and is common ground that the gravamen of the accusa-
tion,against the accused is that they are conducting a 'money circu-
lation scheme'. The reference in the F.I.R. to 'prize chits' reflects
but a common human failing to· err on the safe side and the noto-
F rious effort of draftsmen to embrace as much as possible so that no
argument may be shut out for want of pleading.

Since the sole question for consideration arising out of the
F.l.R., as laid, is whether the accused are conducting a mon.ey
circulation scheme, it is necessary to understand what is compre-
G hended within the statutory meaning of that expression.

Section 2(c) of the Act provides :

" 'Money circulation scheme' means any scheme, by
H whatever name called, for the making of quick or ·easy
money, or for the receipt of any money or valuable thin!!
WBST BENGAL v. SWAPAN KUMAR (Chandrachud, c. J.) 131

as the consideration for a promise to pay money, on any
A
event or contingency relative or applicable to the enrol-
ment of members into tlie scheme, whether or not snch
money or thing is derived from the entrance money of the
members of such scheme or periodical subscriptions."

- Grammar and punctuation are hapless victims of the pace of
life and I prefer in this case not to go merely by the commas used
B

in clause (c) because, though they seem to me to bav~ been placed
both as a matter of convenience and of meaningfulness, yet, a more
thoughtful use of commas and other gadgets of punctuation would
have helped make the meaning of the clause clear beyond contro- c
versy. Besides, how far a clause which follows upon a comma
governs euery clause that precedes the comma is a matter
not free from doubt. I, therefore, consider it more safe and
.. satisfactory to discover the true meaning of clause (c) by having
regard to the substance of the matter as it emerges from the object
and.purpose of the Act, the context in which the expression is used 0
and tho consequences necessarily following upon the acceptance of
any particular interpretation of the provision, the contravention of
which is visited by penal consequences.

Commas or no commas, and howsoever thoughtfully one may
place them if they are to be there, I find it impossible to take clause E
(c) to mean that any and every activity "for the making of quick
or easy money" is comprehended within its scope. For the matter
of that, I cannot believe any law to ban every kind of activity for
making quick or easy money, without more, on pain of penal conse-
- - \_ - quences. It is far too vague and arbitrary to prescribe that
>1'. "whosoever makes quick or easy money shall be liable to be punish- F
• ed with fine or imprisonment". For then, in the absence of any
demarcation of legitimate money-making activities from those
which fall within the ban, the question whether the penal provision
is attracted in a given case wiil depend upon the will and temper,
sweet or sour, of the magistracy. Besides, speaking of law and
G
morals, it does not seem morally just or proper to say that no
person shall make 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 tyrpitude may attach to it. One
need not travel after· to find speaking examples of this. Indeed,
H
there are honournble meq (al!d now wqmen) in all professions re-
132 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1982) 3 s.c.R.

·A cognised 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
(tha\ is as far as a Judge's imagination can go), a doctor who char-
ges a couple of thousands for an operation of tonsilitis lasting ten
8 minutes, an engineer, an architect, a chartered accountant and
other professionals who charge likewise, cannot by any stretch of
imagination be brought into the drag-net of clause (c). Similarly, 'v
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
c that the provisions of clause (c) are directed 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 sec-
D tion 2(c) of the "Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes
(Banning) Act".

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 look perforce to the adjectival
E
clause which qu.alifies the words "for the making of quick or easy
money". What is within the mischief of the Act is not "any
scheme, by whatever name called, for the making of quick or easy
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 periodical subscriptions). Two conditions
must, therefore, be satisfied before a person can be hetd guilty of an
offence under sec. 4 read with secs. 3 and 2(c) of the Act. In the first
place, it must be proved tbar he is promoting or conducting a
sch_eme for the making of quick or easy money and secondly, the
c· chance or opportunity of making quick or easy money must be
shown to depend upon an event or contingency relative or appli·
cable to the enrolment of members into that scheme. The legislative
draftsman could have thoughtfully foreseen and avoided all reason-
able controversy over the meaning of the expression 'mone:)'
H
~irvula!ion sphefl!~' by shapin~ its gejipition in this form :
WEST BENGAL v, SWA~AN KUMAR (Chandrachud, C. J.) 133

'money circulation scheme' means any scheme, by A
. 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, B
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 en-
:.~ trance money of the members of such scheme or perio-
dical subscriptions;
c
I have reshaped the definition, in order to bring out its 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 D
defined and, therefore, I have made a formal modification in ihe
definition without doing violence to its language and indeed,
without even so much as altering a comma.

There is another aspect of the matter which needs to be
underscored, with a view to avoiding fruitless litigation in future. E
Besides the prize chits, what the Act aims at banning is money cir-
culation schemes. It is manifestly necessary and mdeed, to say so
is to state the obvious, that the activity charged as falling within the
mischief of the Act must be shown to be a part of a scheme for
making quick or easy money, dependent upon the happening or
non-happening of any event or contingency relative or applicable F
to the enrolment of members into that scheme. A 'scheme,'
according to the dictionary meaning of that word, is 'a carefully
arranged and systematic progflm of action', a 'systematic plan for
attaining some object', 'a project', 'a system of correlated things'.
(see Webster's New World Dictionary, and Shorter Oxford English
Dictionary, Vol. II), The Systematic programme of action has to G
be a consensual arrangement between two or rr ore persons under
which, the subscriber agrees to advance or lend money on promise
of being paid more money on the happening· of any event or con-
tingency relative or applicable to the enrolment of members into
the programme. Reciprocally, the person who promotes or con-· H
ducts the programme promises, on receipt of an· advance or loan,
134 SUPllEMB COURT REPtiRTS (1982] 3 s.C.ll.

A to pay more money on the happening of such event or contingency.
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
B interest may be in comparision 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 'r
the scheme. In other words, there has to be a community of inte-
rest in the happening of such event or contingency. That explains
c why section 3 makes it an offence to "participate" in the scheme
or to remit any money "in pursuance of such scheme". fle who
conducts or promotes a money-spinning project may have manifold
resources from which to pay fanciful interest by luring the unwary j
customer. But, unless the project envisages a mutual arrangement
under which, the happening or non-happening of an event or con-
D tingency relative or applicable to the enrolment of members into
l_
that arrangement is of the essence, there can be no 'money circula-
tion scheme' within the meaning of section 2 (c) of the Act.

Numerous persons lend their hard-earned monies in the hope
of earning high returns. It ~is notorious that, eventually, quite a
E few of them lose both the principal and the interest, for no project
can succeed against· the basic laws· of economics. Sharp and wily
promoters pay A's money to B and B's to C in order to finance
interest at incredible rates; and eventually, when high-risk investment
made by them at the cost of the credulous lenders fails, the entire
arrangement founders on the rock of foolish optimism. The pro- /-_,_
F
moters, of course, have easy recourse to gadgets of the law of insol-
vency. It is difficult to hold that the lender, himself a victim of the
machinations of the crafty promoter, is intended by the Act to be
""
arraigned as an accused. I do not think that any civilised law can
intend to add insult to injury.
G The question as to whether the First Information Report
prjma facie discloses an offence under section 4 read with section 3
of the Act has to be decieed in the light of these requirements of
section 2 (c) of the Act. I have already reproduced in extenso the
F .I.R. lodged by the Commercial Tax Officer, Bureau of Investiga-
H tion. Analy~ing it carefully, and even liberally, it makes the
WEST BENGAt v. SWAPAN KUMAR (Chandrachud, C. J.) t3S
following allegations against the firm 'Sanchaita Investments' and A
its three partners :

(I) The firm had been offering fabulous interest@ 48%
per annum to its members, which rate of interest was
later reduced to 36% per annum;
B
(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

(3) The fact that interest was paid in excess of I 2% shows C
clearly that a 'Money Circulation Scheme' was being
promoted and conducted for the making of quick or
easy money.

It seems to me impossible to hold on the basis of tliese allegations
that any offence can be said to be made out prima facie under
section 3 of the Act. In the first place, the F.I.R. does not allege,
D
directly or indirectly, that the firm was promoting or conducting a
scheme for the making of quick or easy money, dependent on any
event or contingency relative or applicable to the enrolment of members
into the scheme. Secondly, the F.I.R. does not contain any allegation
whatsoever that persons who advanced or deposited their monies
with the firm were participants of a scheme for the making of quick
E
or easy money, dependent upon any such event or contingency. The
F.l.R. bears on its face the stamp of hurry and want of care. It
seems to assume, what was argued before us by Shri Som Nath
Chatterjee on behalf of the prosecution, that it is enough for the
purposes of section 2 (c) to show that the accused is promoting or
F
conducting a scheme for the making .of quick or easy money, an
assumption which I have shown to be fallacious. An essential
ingredient of section 2 (c) is that the scheme for making quick or
easy money must 'be dependent on any ·event or contingency relative
or applicable to the enrolement of members into the scheme. A
First Information Report which does not allege or disclose that the
essential requirements of the penal provision are prima facie satisfied,
G
cannot form the foundation or constitute the starting p9int of. a
lawful iµvestigation.

In answer to the writ petitions filed by the accused in the
Calcutta High Court, affidavits were filed on behalf of the pro- H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1982) 3s.c.R.
A secuting agency, which do not improve matters in any way. The
affidavit filed by Arun Kanti Roy, Deputy Secretary, Finance
Department, Government of West'Bengal, alleges that :

(i) The actual payment of a very high rate of interest
against the professed rate of 12% attracted huge
B amounts of idle money into circulation ;

(ii) The investment of money as collected is not under
the regulatory control of the Reserve Bank of India
or any other agency of the State dealing with credit
control in relation to the country's economy;
c (iii) The pooling of the purchasing power and the financial
resources and the unfettered deployment thereof have
resulted in the concentration of tremendous economic
power in the hand's of a few, posing a potential threat
to the equilibrium of the country's economy;
D
(iv) The entire process is speculative in nature and directed
towards luring away the investing public to the specula-
tive market for making quick and easy money;

(v) The very basis of the so-called contractual arrange-
E ment between the firm and its depositors is founded
on the. fradulent device to assure to the people a high
rate of interest, the major portion of which is paid
through unaccounted for money, thereby encouraging
the growth of such unaccounted money in the hands
of the investing public;
F
(vi) The professed rate of interest is a mere subterfuge to
provide a cloak of bona fides and legality to the under-
b and transactions, through which unaccounted · for
money comes into play in the market, generating
further unaccounted for money, a part whereof gocis
G back to the depsitors in the form of the balance of
inierest over 12% paid in cash, month by month ;
.
(vii) The firm did not have enough income or resources
so as to be able to pay interest at such high rates ;
H
(viii) The irresistible conclusion, therefore, is that .interest
was being paid out of the capital itself;
WEST BENGAL v. SWAPAN KUMAR (Chandrachad, C. J.) d1
(ix) "The depositor becomes a member of the investment A
scheme of the firm by subscribing to it and the pay-
ment of the quick and easy money by way of high rate ·
of interest is dependent upon the period of investment
and/or efflux of time which are very much relative and/
or applicable to the membership of the depositors of
the scheme to which the depositor agrees to subscribe"; B
and
I -~·

,~-
(x) Iu the process of its working, the scheme of the firm
generates quick and easy money so as to render such
scheme or arrangement a 'money circulation scheme'
within the meaning of the Act.
c
~ The Assistant Commissioner of Police Shri Sunil Kumar
Cbakravarty has adopted these pleas and statements in his own
affidavit.

It is clear from these averments that even at the stage when the D
State of West Bengal and its concerned officers submitted detailed
' . affidavits to the High Court, there was no clear basis for alleging and
no 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 upon an event or contingency relative or
applicable to the enrolment of members into that scheme. E
The burden of the State's song is that the scheme conducted
by the accused generates black money and will lparalyse the
economy of the country. These are serious matters indeed and it is
unquestionable that a private party cannot be permitted to issue bearer
bonds by the back door. The fact that the accused are indulging
in an economic activity which is highly detrimental to national inte-
F
rests is a matter which must engage the prompt and serious atten-
tion of the State and Central Governments. But the narrow ques-
tion for our consideration is whether on the basis of the allegations
made against th_e accused, there is reason to suspect that .they are
guilty of an offence under section 4 read with sections 3 and 2 (c) of
G
the Act. The allegation which we have reproduced in clause (ix)
above from the affidavit of Arun Kanti Roy is the nearest that can
be considered relevant for the purpose of section 2 (c) of the Acts.
But even that allegation does not meet the requirement of that sec-
tion since, what it says is that "the payment of quick and easy H
money by way of high rate of interest is dependent upon the period
SUl>trn.Mll COURt REPoRTS (1982} 3 S.C.R.

A of investment and/or efflux of time which are. very much
relative and/or applicable to the membership of the depositors
of . the scheme to which the depositor agrees to sub-
scribe". This is too tenuous to show that the scheme is
dependent upon an event or contingency of the description
mentioned in section 2(c), apart from the fact that the only partici-
B pation which is alleged as against the depositors is that they become
members of the "investment scheme" by subscribing to it. There
is no allegation even in any of the affidavits filed on behalf of the
State of West Bengal and its concerned officers that the depositors
and the promoters are animated by a community of interest in tbe
·matter of the scheme being dependent upon any event or contin-
c gency relative or applicable to the enrolment of members into it.
That being an essential ingredient of the offence charged, i( cannot
be said .in the absence of any allegation whatsoever in that behalf,
that there is "reason to suspect" the commission of that offence
within the meaning of section 15 7 of the Code of Criminal Proce-
dure, so as to justify the investigation i.ndertaken by the State
D authorities .

• My learned Brother, A.N. Sen J., bas considered exhaustively
the various authorities cited at the Bar by both the sides on the
'
question as to the power of the courts to quash an i1ivestigation. I
fully concur with his careful analysis of those authorities and would
E content myself with a broad indication of the trend of law bearing
on the subject.

Shri Ashok Sen and Shri Siddhartha Shankar Ray pressed
upon us with considerable insistence the principle reiterated in
W.H. King v. Republic of India, (')that a statute which creates an
F
offence and imposes a penalty of fine and imprisonment must be
construed strictly in favour of the subject. The principle that no
person can be put in peril of hii life and liberty on an ambiguity is
well-established. But, as observed in M. V. Joshi v. M.U. Shimpi (2)
when it is .said that penal statutes must be construed strictly, what
is meant is that the c'ourt must see that the thing charged is an
G
offence within the plain meaning of th.e words used and it must
not strain the words : "To put it in other words, the rule
of strict construction requires that the language of a statute

H (I) [1952] S.C.R. 418, 424.
(1) [1961] 3 SCR 993-994.
WEST BBNGAL v. SWAPAN KUMAR (Chandrachud, C. J.) 13~

should be ~o construed that no case shall be held to fall within
A
it which does not come within the reasonable interpretation
of the statute", and that in case of doubt, the construction
favourable to the subject should be preferred. But I do not think
that this rule of strict interpretation of penal statutes in any way
affects the fu~damental principle of interpretation, that the primary
B-
test which can safely be applied is the language used in the Act
and, therefore, when the words are clear and plain, the CDurt must
accept the expressed intention of the Legislature. It is unnecessary
to pursue this matter any further in view of the fact that the langu-
age of section 2(c) is, in my opinion, clear arid admits of no doubt
or difficulty.
c
In R.P. Kapur v. The State of Punjab,(') the question which
arose for consideration was whether a first information report can
be quashed under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The Court held on the facts before it that no case for quashing the
proceedings was made out but Gajendragadkar J., speaking for the D
Court observed that though ordinarily, criminal proceedings insti-
tuted against an accused must be tried under the provisions of the
. Code, there are some categories of cases where the inherent juris-
diction of the Court can and should be exercised for quashing the
proceedings. One such category, according to the Court, consists
of cases where the allegations in ~he F.l.R. or t]le complaint, even E
if they are taken at their face value and accepted in. their entirety,
do not constitute the offence alleged; in such cases, no question of
appreciating evidence arises and it is a matter merely of looking at
the F.l.R. or the complaint in order to decide whether the offence
alleged is disclosed or not. In such cases, said t)le Court, it would
be legitimate for the High Court to hold that it would be mani- F
festly unjust to allow the process of the criminal court to be issued
against the accused.

In S.N. Sharma v. Bipen Kumar Tiwari, (') a first informa-
tion report was lodged naming an Additional District Magistrat~ G
(Judicial) as the principal accused. His application under section
159 of the Criminal Procedure Code asking t bat the Judicial
Magistrate should himself conduct a preliminary inquiry was dis-
missed, but the Court observed that though the Code of Criminal
H
{I) [1960) SCR 388, 392-393.
(2) [1970) 3 S.C.R. 946.
' \ :. ' > ,,_ \ ,l· , - '
140 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1982) 3 S.C.R.

A Procedure gives to the police unfettered power to investigate all
cases where they suspect that a cognizable offence has been commit·
ted, in appropriate cases, an aggrieved person can always seek a
remedy by invoking the power of the High Court under Art. 226
of the Constitution and that the High Court could issue a writ of
mandamus restraining the police from misusing their legal
powers.

y-
Shri Som Nath Chatterjee has placed great reliance on the
decision of this Court in State of West Bengal v. S.N. Basak,( 1) in
which it was held that the statutory powers given to the .police . !':-
c under sections J54 and 156 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to
investigate into the circumstances of an alleged cognizable offence
without authority from a Magistrate cannot be interfered with by
the exercise ·of powers under section 439 or under the inherent
powers conferred b)' section 561A of the Code. It must be remem-
bered that no question arose in that case as to whether, the allega-
D tions contained in the F.I.R. disclosed any offence at all. The
contention of the accused in that case was that the statutory power
of investigation given to the police under Chapter XIV of the Code
is not available in respect of an offence triable under the West Bengal
Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) Act 1949 and that being
so, the investigation undertaken by the police was without jurisdic-
E tion. That contention was negatived and, therefore, ihe application
filed by the accused under sections 439 and 561 A of the Code was
dismissed.

In Jehan Singh v. Delhi Administration,(') the application filed by ·
the accused under s~ction 56l·A of the Code for quashing the investi-
F gation was dismissed as being premature and incompetent, but that
was because t':e Court found (per Sarkaria L page 797) that pdma
facie, the allegation in the F.l.R., if taken as correct, disclosed the
commission of a cognizable offence by the accused.

The only ·other decision to which I need refer is that of the
G Privy Council in King-Emperor· v. Kawaja Nazir. Ahmad,(') which
conscitutes, as it were, the charter of the prosecution all over for
saying that no investigation can ever be quashed. In a passage oft-

(I) [1963) 2 S.C.R. 52.
(2) [1974) 3 S.C.R. 794.
H (3) 71 I.A. 203.
WEST BENGAL v. SWAPAN KUMAR (Chandrachud, c. J.) 141

quoted but much-misunderstood, Lord porter, delivering the opinion A
of the Judicial Committee, observed :

"In their Lordships' opinion, however, the more
serious aspect of the. case is to be found in the resultant
interference by the court with the duties of the police. Just
as it is essential that every one accused of a crime should B
have free access to a court of justice so that he may be duly
acquitted if found noi guilty of the offence with which he
is charged, so it is of the utmost importance that the judi-
ciary should not interfere with the police in matters which
are within their province and into which the law imposes on
them the duty of inquiry. In India, as has been shown, c
there is a statutory right on the part of the police to investi-
gate the circumstances of an alleged cognizable crime with·
out requiring an~ authority from the judicial authorities,
and it would,' as their Lordships.think, be an unfortunate
result if it shou1a be 'held possible to interfere with those
statutory rights by an exercise of the inherent jurisdiction D
of the court. The functions of the .judiciary and the police
are complementary, not overlapping, and the combination
of individual liberty with a due observance of law and order
• is only to be obtained by leaving each to exercise its own
function, always, of course, subject to the right of the court
to intervene in an appropriate case when moved under E
section 491 of the Criminal procedure Code to give direc-
tions in the nature of habeas corpus. In such a case as
the present, however, the court's functions begin when a
charge is preferred before it, and not until then.', (pp. 212-
213)
F
I do not think that this decision supports the wide proposition
~,
canvassed before us by Shri Som Nath Chatterjee. In the case
I before the Privy Council, similar charges which were levelled against
the accused in an earlier prosecution were dismissed. The High
Court quashed the investigation into fresh charges after examining
the previous record, on the basis of which it came to the conclusion G
that tl:e evidence against the accused was unacceptable. The
question before the Privy Council was not whether the fresh F.I.R.
disclosed any offence at all. In fact, immediately after the passage·
which I have extracted above, the Privy Council qualified its state·
J11ept by saying ; ·
142 SUPREME COUllT REPORTS [1982) 3 s.c.R.

A "No doubt, if no cognizable offence is disclosed, and
still more, if no Wfence of any kind is disclosed, the police
would have no authority to undertake an investigation."
If anything, therefore, the judgment shows that an investigation
can be quashed if no cognizable offence is disclosed by the F.I;R. It
shall also have been noticed, which is sometim~s overlooked, that the
B Privy Council took care to qualify its statement of the law by saying
that the judiciary should not interfere with the police in matters
which are within their province. It is surely not within the province
of the police to investigate into a Report which does not disclose
the commission of a cognizable offence and the Code does not
c impose upon them the duty of inquiry in such cases ..
. The position which emerges from these decisions and the other
!
decisions which are discussed by Brother A.N. Sen is that the condi-
tion precedent to the commencement of inveftigation under section
157 of the Code is that the F.I.R. must disclose, prima facie, that
a cognizable offence has been committed. It is wrong to suppose
0 that the police have an unfettered discretion to commence investi-
gation under section 157 of the Code. Their right of inquiry is
conditioned by the existence of reason to suspect the commission of
a cognizable offence and they cannot, reasonably, have reason so to
suspect unless the F.I.R., prima fa cie, discloses the commission of
such offence. If that condition is satisfied, the investigation must go
E on and th.e rule in Khwaja Nazir Ahmed (supra) will apply. The Court
has then no power to stop the investigation, for to do so would be
to trench upon the lawful power of the police to investigate into
cognizable offences. On the other hand, if the F.l.R. does not
disclose the commission of a cognizable offence, the Court would ,_
.. ----<-.
F he justified in quashing the investigation on the basis of the informa-
tion as laid or received.
There is no such thing like unfettered discretion in the realm
of powers defined by statutes and indeed, unlimited discretion in
that sphere can become a ruthless destroyer of personal freedom.
The power to investigate into cognizable offences must, therefore,
G be exercised strictly on the condition on which it is granted by'tbe
Code. l may, in this behalf, usefully draw attention to the warning
uttered by Mathew J. in bis majority judgment in Prabhu Dayal
Deorah v. The District Magistrate, Kamrup( 1 ) to the following
· effect :
H
(1) [1974) 2 S.C.R. 12, 22-23,
WEST BENGAL v. SWAPAN KUMAR (Chandrachud, c. J.) 143

"We say, and we think it is necessary to repeat, that
the gravity of the evil to the community resulting from
anti-social activities can never furnish an adequate reason
for invading the personal liberty of a citizen, except in
accordance with the procedure established by the Constitu-
tion and the laws. The history of personal liberty is largely 8
the history of insistence on observance of procedure. Ob-

l
servance of procedure bas been the bastion against wanton
assaults on personal liberty over the years. Under our
Constitution, the only guarantee of personal liberty for
a person is that he shall not be deprived of it except in
accordance wit.b the procedure established by Law." c
For these reasons, which, frankly, are no different from those
given by my learned Brother A.N. Sen, I am of the opinion that
the investigation which has been commenced upon the First Infor-
mation Report is without jurisdiction and must, therefore, be
quashed. I do accordingly and direct that no further investigation D
shall take place in pursuanc! or on the basis of the F.I. R. dated
December 13, 1980 lodged by the Commercial Tax Officer, Bureau
of Investigation, with the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Bureau
of Investigation, Madan Street, Calcutta.

I am free to confess that it is with considerable regret that I E
have ~ome to the conclusion that the investigation must be quashed.
If the State authorities bad applied their mind carefully to the
requirements of section 2 (c) of the Act, this appeal might have had
a different story to tell, the bare outlines of which I must now proce-
ed to narrate.
F
The firm 'Sanchai ta Investments' commenced its business on
July I, 1975, its three partners contributing a total capital of Rs. 7000
(Rupees seven thousand). On December 25, 1978 an advertise-
ment appeared in the "Hindu" in the name of firm, claiming falsely
that its business was "approved by the Reserve Bank of India".
Since the representation was likely to mislead the public, the Reserve G
Bank advised the firm in May 1979 too issue a suitable corrigendum,
which the firm did.

On July 6, 1979, Shri Rudolph L. Rodrigues. a Member of the
Lok Sabha, wrote a confidential Jetter to Shri. Charan Singh, the H
then Deputy Prfme Minister, coinplaininll that the business of the fil'lll
144 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (19821 3 s.c.R.

was "a cover-up for a parallel banking system for black money".
A copy of Shri Rodrigues' letter was forwarded by the Director,
Department of Economic Affairs, Ministry ''of Finance, to the Chief
Officer, Department of Non-Banking Companies, Reserve Bank of
India, Calcutta,_ for inquiry. By his letter dated August 7, 1979 the
Chief Officer pointed out the difficulty in directing investigation into
B the affairs of the.firm since, its capital being less than Rs, one lakh,
it did not come within the definition of a Non-Banking institution
as provided in section 54 (c) of the Reserve Bank of India Act,
· 1934. On September 13, 1980 the Deputy Secretary Finance Depart-
ment Government of West Bengal, wrote a letter to the Chi•f Officer
requesting him to exall!ine the question whether the business of the
c firm came within the purview of the prize Chits and Money Circu·
lation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 and if noi, under which Act the
affairs of the firm could be regulated. On October 1, 1980, Shri
Ashok Mitra, Finance Minister for the State of West Bengal, wrote
a letter to Shri Vcnkataraman, Finance Minister to the Government
of India, complaining that the firm was involved in high-risk
D investments and that large amounts of public moneys were
kept in deposit with the firm, which were not subjected to any
regulatory control. The letter of Shri Ashok Mitra appears
to have been handed over ,informally to Dr. K.S. Krishnaswamy,
Deputy Governor of the Reserve Bank, who, by his reply dated
October 22, 1980, informed Shri Mitra that the legal department of
E the Reserve Bank was of the opinion that the mere acceptance of
Joans by the firm would not ordinarily be covered by the Prize Chits
and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978. There was
further correspondence on the subject between the authorities of
the Government of Jndia and the State Government._ but nothing
F came out of it.

The Act came into force on December 13, 1978 and immedi-
ately on the expiry of the two years' period of grace allowed by it,
the F.I.R. was lodged against the firm on December 13, 1980. On
that day, the office of the firm at 5-6, Fancy Lane, Calcutta, was
G searched by the police, during the course of which a sum of
Rs. 42,16,530 (Rupees forty two lacs, sixteen thousand, five hund-
red and thirty) was recovered. The amount was tied in separate
bundles of notes of different denominations. Sever11l books of
accounts were also seized during the search,
WEST BENGAL v. SWAPAN KUMAR (Chandrachud, C.J.) 145

On the same date, a search was carried out at the residence of A
Shambhu Prasad Mukherjee, a partner of the firm, when the follow-
ing articles were seized :

(I) One pass-book of Syndicate Bank, Gariahat Branch,
, Calcutta, in the name of "Apcar Ave Toon", 9, Royd
Street, Calcutta-17. (The account was in a fictitious B
name and the pass-book shows that a sum of Rs.
Twenty-eight crores was lying in credit in that
account).

(2) A sum of Rs .. 9,95,000 (Rs. nine lacs ninety-five thou-
sand) tied in separate bundles of 11otes of the denomi-
c
nation of Rs. I 00 and 50.

(3) A country-made 6 chamber revolver, with one bullet
inside.

From the house of another partner, Biharilal Murarka, certain D
account ·books were seized.

During, the course of investigation until January 8, 1981 when
it was stopped by an order of this Conrt, as many as eighty places
were searched by the police and a large number of documents were
seized. It is apparent from these documents that the firm was pay- E
ing to its depositors interest at the rate of 48 per cent upto Septem-
ber 1979 and 36 per cent thereafter for a short period. The interest
was paid to each depositor every month by the agents who called
on each depositor personally for that purpose. The interest in ex-
cess of 12 per cent was invariably paid in cash. The on coming
elections to legislative bodies in 1980 appear to have led to reduc- F
tion in the rate of interest, since the firm's circulating capital was
needed by "political parties". Which parties, I do not know, but
this much is fairly certain from the facts which have emerged before ·
us that the funds available to the firm were diverted frequently for
the use of political parties.
G

Certain lists of agents were seized during the investigation
which show that Code numbers were assigned to at least 84 of them.
The agents have acquired large ptoperties at various places, consis- H
ting of lands, apartments, cars eN· $ome of the a!lents have .started
11ew business activities .
146 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1982] 3 s.c.R.

A staggering revelation which came to light as a result of the
A searches at the office of the firm is that, as of September I, 1980,
the firm was holding deposits to the tune of Rs. 73,51,23,500
(Rupees seventy-three crores, fifty-one lacks, twenty-three thousand
and five hundred). Th~se deposits were received by the firm from
persons drawn from all parts of the eountry, the pride of place
B belonging to Calcutta, Bombay, Delhi, Madras and Hyderabad.
Remittances also appear to have been received by the firm from
overseas clients. A compilation prepared by the State authorities
in pursuance of an interim order passed by this Court shows that
the total amount of deposits made by persons who had deposited a
sum of Rs. 10,000 or less each comes to Rs. 11,49,40,950 (Rupees
c eleven crores, forty-nipe lacs, forty-thousand, nine hundred and
fifty).

The documents relating to the account in the fictiiious name
of "Apcar Ave Toon" show that a person alleged to bear.that
D name was introduced to the Syndicate .Bank, Gariahat Branch,
Calcutta by 111e firm's partner Sambhu Prosad Mukherjee. The
pass-book relating to the account (Cutrent Account No. 210) shows
that the account was opened with a cash deposit of Rs. 28 lacs.
A total sum of Rupees twenty seven crores, ninety seven lacs eighty-
six thousand and odd was deposited in that account until December
E 6, 1980, all deposits being in cash. Such cash deposits varied often
between 50 to 80 lacs at a time.. The amount of nearly Rs. 28
crores was withdrawn from the account steadily from November 11,
1980. The account was closed on December 6, 1980, that is, a
week before the F.I.R. was lodged on December 13, 1980. Some
F. of the entries in the pass-book do not tally with the Bank's ·--£-
Ledger.

A study of Current Account No. S-502 in the name of the
firm with the United Bank .of India, High Court Branch, Calcutta,
G shows that the firm had invested several lacs of rupees in various
concerns numbering about forty. Lacs of rupees have been trans-
ferred by the firm to various concerns.

Documents seized from the office premises of the firm show
II that the partners and their family members are insured with the
LJ.C. in heavy amounts. They have acquired large properties,
particularly in Bombay.
WEST BENGAL v. SWAPAN KUMAR (Chandrachud, C.J.) 147

Several offices and concerns in Bombay were searched by the A
police and interesting discoveries were made. Their magnitude and
variety are too large for the scope of this judgment. I will close
this narrative by saying that the income-tax returns of Shambhu ·
Prosad Mukherjee reveal that he had shown a sum of Rs. 8,00,000
as prizes received from Delhi Lotteries in 1979 and that the firm has
not filed any income-tax return after the financial year ending June B
30, 1977. It had asked for an extension of time on the ground that
its accounts were not finalised but the Department rejected that
\ prayer on December 9, 1980. With further indulgence they have
~··'- managed cleverly to secure is not yet known.

These facts disclose a bizzare state of affairs. A token capital of
c
Rs. 7,000 has begotten a wealth of crores of rupees within a span of
five years. A bank account opened by the firm in a fictitious name
had a sum of Rs. twenty·eight crores in it, which was withdrawn
within a week before the lodging of the F.I.R. Interest was being
paid to depositors at the incredible rate of 48 p.c. p.a. The firm D
had no ostensible source of income from which such exorbitant
amounts could be paid and its account books, such as were seized
from its head-office, give no clue to its income or its assets. The
partners of the firm have become millionaries overnight. Clerks and
Chemists that they and some of their agents were in 1975, to-day
they own properties which will put a prince to shame. "Rags to E
riches" is how one may justly describe this story of quick and easy
enrichment. There is no question that this vast wealth has been
acquired by the firm by generating and circulating black money.
Indeed, rightly did Shri Ashok Sen appearing for the firm, ask us to •
be free to proceed on the assumption that the exorbitant amount of
interest was.being i:iaid from out of unaccounted money. F

In these circumstances though I see no alternative save to stop
all further investigation on the basis of the F.I.R. as laid, no offence
being disclosed by it under section 4 of the Act, I am unable to
accept the contention of Shri Ashok Sen that all documents, books G
papers and cash seized so far during the investigation should be
returned to the firm and its partners forthwith. The firm appears
to be on the brink of an economic crisis, as any scheme of this
nature is eventually bound to be. Considering the manner in which
the firm has manipulated· its accounts and its affairs, l have no H
doubt that it will secret the large funds and destroy the incrimina-
ting documents if they are returned \Q it., Th.~ State Gover11ll\~l\t,
•
148 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (!982) 3 S.C.ll.

A the Central Government and' the Reserve Bank·of India must be
given a reasonable opportu.nity to see if it is possible, under the law,
to institute an inquiry into the affairs of the firm and, in the mean
while, to regulate its affairs. I consider such a step essential in the
interests of countless small depositors who, otherwise, will be ruined
by being deprived of their life's savings. The big black money bosses '
8 will take any loss within their stride but the small man must receive
the protection of the State wliich must see to it that the small deposi-
tors are paid back their deposits with the agreed interest as quickly
as possible. I therefore direet that the documents, books, papers,
cash and other articles seized during the investigation shall be retained
by the police in their custody for a period of two months from to-
c day and will be returned, on the expiry of that period, to persons
from whom they were seized, subject to any lawful directions which
may be given or obtained in the me_anwhile regarding their custody
and return.

D With this modification, I agree respectfully with Brother A.N.
Sen that the appeals be dismissed.

VARADARAJAN J. I agree with the judgment and the final order
proposed by the learned Chief Justice.

E AMARENDRA NATH SEN, J. This appeal by special leave bas
been filed by the State of West Bengal and three officers of the State
against an order passed by a learned single Judge of the Calcutta
• High Court. The facts material for the purpose of this appeal have
been fully set out in the judgment of the learned single Judge of the
Calcutta High Court. The facts material for the purpose of this
F appeal may, however, be briefly indicated :

Sanchaita Investments is a partnership firm duly registered
under the Indian Partnership Act. Sancbaita Investments (herein-
after referred to as the firm) bas its principal place of business at
G Nos. 5 and 6. Fancy Lane, Calcutta. Shambhu Prasad Mukherjee,
Bihari Lal Murarka and Swapan Kumar Guba are the three partners
of the Firm. The capital of the partnership firm is Rs. 7,000/-. The
firm carries on the business as financiers and investors and in its
business the firm accepts loans or deposits from the general public
H for different periods repayable with interest @I 2% per annum. Under
the terms of deposits, the depositors have a right to withdraw their
deposits with the firm at any time before the expiry of the fixed
•
•

,. WBsT BENGAL v. SWAPAN KUMAR (Chandrachud, C.J.) 14§

period of the deposit. In case of premature withdrawal, the deposi-
tors however loses interest of I% and is paid interest @ 11 % per
annum. Under the terms and conditions of the deposits, the firm
has also the liberty to repay the amount with interest to any deposi-
tor at any time before the expiry of the stipulated period of the
deposit and in the event of such repayment by the firm, the firm is B
not required under the terms and conditions of the deposit or loan,
to give any reason. It appears that the firm has been carrying on
its business on a very extensive scale.
...... \
/'-.
In the year 1978, the Parliament passed an Act called the
Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978
(hereinafter referred to as the Act).
c
On the 13th December, 1980, the Commercial Tax Officer,
Bureau of Investigation, lodged a complaint of violation of the Act
by the firm with. the Police. The F.I.R. has been set out in full in
the judgment of the learned Trial Judge and the same reads as
follows :
D

" 13.12.1980

The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Bureau of Investigation, E
10, Madras Street.
Calcutta· 72

Sir,

On a secret information that 'Sanchaita Investments' F'
of 5 and 6 Fancy Lane, Calcutta, is carrying on business
of promoting and/or conducting prize chit and/or money
circulation scheme enrolling members of such chit and/or
scheme participating in these, and/ or receiving and remit·
ting monies in pursuance of such chits and/or scheme in
G
violation of the provisions of the prize chits and money
circulation scheme (Banning) Act, 1978. Inquiry was held
secretly to verify correctness or otherwise of the aforesaid
secret information. Enquiry reveals that the said 'Sanchita
Investments' is a Partnership firm, partners being Shri H
Bihari Prasad Murarka, Shri Sambhu Mukherjee and
Swapan Kumar Guba and th1t it was floated in or around
tso - Sui>RBME touat R.Bi>oHs [1982] 3s.c.R,

A 1975. Enquiry further reveals that the said firm had been
offering fabulous interest @ 48% per annum to its members
until very recently. The rate of interest has of late been
reduced to 36% per annum. Such high rates of interest
were and are being paid even though the loan certificate
receipts show the rate of interest to be 12% only. Thus,
B the amount in excess of 12% so paid clearly shows that ',--.
the 'Money Circulation Scheme' is being promoted and I

conducted for the making of quick and/or easy money, )-
prizes and/or gifts in cash were and are also awarded to )
agents, promoters and members too. /'\,~

c In view of the above, Saravsree. Bihari Prasad Murarka
Sambhu Prasad Mukherjee and Swapan Kumar Guha
appear to have been carrying on business in the trade name
of 'Sanch~ita Investments' in prize chits and money circu-
lation scheme in violation of section 3 of the Prize Chits
D and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1976 are
therefore, punishable under S. 4 of the said Act. Necessary
action may, therefore, be kindly taken against the aforesaid
offenders along with other accomplice as provided in the
law.

E
Yours faithfully
Sd/- Illegible
13.12.1980
Commercial Tax Officer, Bureau
F of Investigation."

On the 13th of December, two of the partners of the firm were
arrested. The office of the. firm and also the houses of the partners
were searched. Various documents and papers were seized and a
large amount of cash was also seized from the office and also from
G the risidence of one of the partners. _Two partners who were arrested
were, however, thereafter enlarged on bail.

The firm and its two partners, namely, Shambhu Prasad ·
H Mukherjee and. Bihari Lal Murarka filed this writ petition in the
High Court challenging the validity of the F.I.R. and the proce-
dings arising out of the same i~luding the validity of the searches
WEST BENGAt v. SWAPAN ltUMAR (A.N. Sen, },) 151
and seizure of documents, papers and cash. The respondents in the A.
writ petition were six. The first respondent was the State of West
Bengal, Respondents No. 2 was the Officer who had lodged the
F.I.R., Respondent No. 3 was the Assistant Commissioner of Police
·and Superintendent of Police, Bureau of Investigation, and respon-
dent No. 4 was the Investigating Officer in the cases pending before
the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Calcutta. Respondent No. 5 was B
the Reserve Bank of India and Respondent No. 6 was the Union of
India.

In brief the case made .bY the firm and its partners in the writ
petition is that the firm is a non-banking financial institution which
carries on business of accepting deposits or loans from the general
public on terms and conditions mentioned in the agreement of loan
or deposit, pays interest to persons who invest or advance money
to the firm in terms of the. agreement between the parties and
repays all amounts received from the parties with ~nterest in terms of
the agreement between the parties. The further case made by the D
writ petitioners in the writ petition is that the amounts which they
r~ceive from parties are reinvested by them and out of the invest-
ments made by the firm, the firm pays the interest to the depositors
and also the principal amount deposited by them in terms of
the agreement between the parties. In the writ petition there
is a denial of the allegations made in the F.I.R. and the case E
is further made that even if the allegations made in the F.I.R. are
assumed to be correct, there cannot be any question of any violation
of the Act and no offenc~ under the Act is disclosed. It is the
positive case of the writ petitioners in the writ petition that the Act
has no application to the firm. In the writ petition, the validity of
the F.I.R. and the proceeding arising therefrom is challenged mainly F
on the ground that the F.l.R. does not disclose any offence under
the Act which does not apply to the firm and there can be question
of any violation of any provisions of the Act which has no applica-
tion to the firm at all.

In answer to the averments made in writ petition, an affidavit
G
affirmed by Shri Arun Kanti Roy, was filed on behalf of respondent
Nos. 1 and 2, an affidavit affirmed by Shri Sunil Kumar Chakra.
vorty on behalf of respondents Nos. 3 and 4 was filed and an
· affidavit affirmed by. Shri Rani Annaji Rao on behalf of the Reserve H
Bank of India was also filed. In the affidavit affirmed by Arnn Kanti
Roy, Deputy Secretary, Finance Department and Ex-officio Director
152 SUPREM" COURt REPORTS [1982] 3 s.c.K.

A of Small Savings, Government of West Bengal, on behalf of Res-
pondents No. I and 2, that is, the State of West Bengal and Shri
B.K. Kundu, there is an assertion that the Respondents come within
the mischief of the Act and they have violated S. 3 of the Act. The .
relevant averments are contained in paragraphs 6, 7, 8 and 9 of
B the said affidavit and it is necessary to· set out the same in their
entirety :

"6. With reference to paragraphs 3 and 4 of the
petition, I say that the petitioner firm accepts loans and/or
c deposits from all and sundry for varying periods without
any authority of law. Although the professed rate of
interest ,of such deposit is at the rate of 12% per annum,
the petitioner firm was actually paying interest at the rate
of 48% per a!mum, which was recently reduced to 36%
per annum. The actual payment of such high rate of
D interest against the professed rate of 12% attracts huge
amount of idle money into circulation and the investment
of money as collected is not under the regulatory control
of the Reserve Bank of India or any other agency of the
State dealing with credit control in relation to the country's
economy. The receipt of such money from the members
E of public at such high rate of interest is without any
fetters as against the case of the receipt of money by
banking companies as also non-banking companies which
are regulated under different provisions of law, to which I
·will crave reference at the time of hearing, tf necessary.
The pooling of the purchasing power and/or the financial
F resources and the employment there of being unfettered has
resulted in the concentration of tremendous economic
power in the hands of a few posing a potential threat to
the equilibirium of the country's economy. The term of >
the deposit are unilaterally determined without any scrutiny
by the Reserve Bank of India or with reference to the
G
norms as to the credit control which the said Bank lays
down and follows from tiiµe !to time. The acceptances of
such deposits from the members of public with unrestricted
use of the moneys so collected are completely repugnant
H to the accepted modes of public savings and investment
thereof for generation of goods and services contributing to
the economic growth of the country. The entire process is
WEST BIJNOAt v. SWAPAN KUMAR (A.N. Sen, J.\ 153'
.A
speculative in nature and directed towards luring away the
investing public to the speculative market for making quick
and easy money. These are some of the activities which
are sought to be banned by the banning provisions of the
said Act, which has replaced similar regulatory measures
,. contained in the several directions issued by the Reserve.
B
Bank of India under the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934,
to the various financial institutions and non-banking
companies, The present Act is applicable not only to
such companies but also to individuals and firms. All
allegations contrary to and save as aforesaid are denied.
c
7. · With reference to paragraph 5 of the petition I
call upon the petitioner to disclose full particulars of their
deposit scheme, which is disclosed will go to show that the
terms and conditions are wholly arbitrary and contrary to
the economic norms. The very basis of the so called con-
tractual arrangement between the petitioner firm and its D
depositors is founded on the fradulent device to assure the
people with a high rate of interest, the major portion of
which is paid through unaccounted for money, thereby
encouraging growth of such unaccounted for money in the
hands of the investing public. The professed rate of
interest is a mere subterfuge to provide a cloak of bona- E
fide and legality over the under-hand transactions through
which unaccounted for money comes into play in the
market generating further unaccounted for money, a part
thereof goes back to the depositors in the form of the
balance of interest over 12% paid in cash month by month.
All allegations contrary to and save as aforesaid are F
denied.

8. With reference to paragraph 8 of the petition I
say that the petitioners have been very much working on
the above scheme to which the depositors have subscribed. G
Whether such deposits are one time deposits and whether
such deposits actually earn income in excess of the interest
actually paid to the depositors or a matter of detailed
investigation, which were in progress until the same was
stopped by the order cif the learned Court of Appeal pass- H
ed on 8th January, 1981. From whatever particulars are
so far available to the answering respondents it can be
B4 SUPIU!Mlr eoukt REPoRts .J il982J 3 s.c.R.
A stated that the firm did not have so much income as the
quantum of interest that was being paid by it and the
irresistibal conclusion from such state of affairs is that
payment of interest was being made out of capital itself.
All allegations contrary to and save as aforesaid are
denied.
8
9. With reference to paragraph 7 of the petition I
reiterate the statements made· hereinbefore and deny all
allegations contrary thereto. I specifically deny that no
• quick or easy money is accepted or received by the depo-
sitors or lenders or that payment of any such meney is not
c contemplated or made by the firm as purported to be
alleged. The depositor becomes a member of the invest·
ment scheme of the company by subscribing to it and the
payment of the quick and easy money by way of high rate
of interest is dependent upon the period of investment and/
or effiux of time which are very much relative and/or appli-
D cable to the membership of. the depositors of the scherr e,
to which the depositor agrees to. subscribe. In the process
of its working the scheme of the firm generates quick and
easy money so as to render such scheme or arrangement as
a money circulation scheme within the mea.ning of the
said Act. All allegations contrary to and save as aforesaid
E are denied.

The followin~ further averments contained in paragraph 22
and in paragraph 30 of the said affidavit may also be noted :

"22 .............. .
F
I further say that payment of interest at the clandestine
rate of 36% or 46% as against the aforesaid rate of 12%
is in the context of the scheme promoted and conducted by
the petitioners tantamount to activity which is banned
G under the banking provisions of the said Act.

30............ .

No question of the depositors being ruined should
arise if the petitioners had been runuing their business on
H sound economic line and had invested the fund collected
from the depositors in safe and sound investment. The
weSr BENGAL v. SWAPAN KUMAR (A.N. Sen, J.) !SS

very fact that the petitioners are apprehersive of innumera-
A
ble depositors being ruined goes to show that they engaged
themselves and also the depositors in the spE'culative market
and have rendered the investment insecure by reasons of
the very nature of the business i.e. money circulation scheme
transacted by them."
B
In the affidavit affirmed by Shri Sunil Kumar Chakraverty,
Assistant Commissioner of Police and Deputy Superintendent of
Police, Bureau of Investigation, Government of West Bengal,
Finance, Taxation Department and filed on behalf of Respondents
Nos. 3 and 4, the deponent adopts the. statements made in the
affidavit of Arun Kanti Roy and the deponent denies that the sear-
c
ches and seizures were unlawful and illegal. The deponent further
stated that as a result of the searches effected a mass of documents
and a large amount of cash had been seized and the documents were
being scrutinised.
D
In the affidavit affirmed by Shri Rani Annaji Rao, filed on
behalf of Reserve Bank of Jndia, the deponent has stated that the
Jl.eserve Bank of India which has no regulatory control over
the firm has been unnecessarily made a party to ilie proceeding. It
has been further stated in ·the said affidavit .that as desired by the
parties and the Court, the Reserve Bank of India was placing the E
materials which had come to the knowledge of the Reserve Bank.
In this affidavit reference has been made to .certain correspondence
between the State Finance Minister, Union Finance Minister and
the Deputy Governor of the Reserve Bank of India and also to
various queries made and the enquiries made by the Reserve Bank
of India. It has been further stated that the view of the legal depart- F
ment of the Reserve Bank on the basis of the enquiries made had
Leen indicated to the Finance Minister of the State of West Bengal.
In this connection it will be relevant to set out two letters which
have been annexed to the said affidavit filed on behalf of the Reserve
Bank of India and are annexures D and E thereto. Annex.ure D
is the copy of a letter addressed by Shri Ashok Mitra, State Finance G
Minister to the Union Minister for Finance and the said letter reads
· as follows :

"Informally handed over to
DG (K) at Calcutta. H
Ashok Mitra
D.O. No. IM. 28-2-80 Calcutta, October 1, 1980
156 SUPREME COUl!.t REPORTS [1982) 3 s.c.i\ ..

A
Dear Shri Venkataraman,

In the con1ext of the action being taken by the Govern-
ment of West Bengal .under the Prize Chits and Money
Circulation Schemes {Banning) Act, 1978, a question has
B arisen whether an organisation called 'Sanchaita Invest-
ments, with the address at 5 & 6, Fancy Lane, Calcutta-I
come within the purview of the above Act. A reference in
the matter has been made by our authorised officer under
the above act to the Chief Officer, Department of Non-
Banking Companies, Reserve Bank of India, Calcutta today.
c I am enclosing a copy of an advertisement published by
the above organisation in the local newspapers as also a
copy of a loan certificate receipt issued by the said organisa-
tion. I may mention that the authorised officer has issued
notice under the above Act to a "Sanchaita Savings Sch~me
{P) Ltd." which is to be distinguished from 'Sanchaita
D Investments'. It appears that the organisation called
"Sachaita Investments" is receiving large amount of monies
from the public ostensibly as loans, and in lieu they are
issuing loan certificates receipts. While we have no docu-
mentary evidence, the ne~s is strongly circulating in the
market that the organisation is in fact offering rates
E of interest as high as 30 to 40 per cent ev~n though
the loan certificate receipts indicate a rate of interest of 12
per cent only. There seems reasonable grounds for suspi-
cion that this organisation is involved in extremely high-risk
investments which only can enable them to pay such rates
of interest. Since the security of monies deposited by the
F . public is involved, we would suggest that a thorough
enquiry be conducted by the Government of India into the
activities of this organisation particularly for finding out
whether they are infringing provisions of any relevant
status. It is felt necessary to conduct such an investigation
on an urgent basis since large amounts of public monies
G are reported to be kept with this organisation, which does
not seem as yet to have subjected to any regulatory control.
We are meanwhile awaiting a reply to our reference (copy
enclosed) to the Reserve Bank of India regarding the appli-
H cability of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes
(Banning) Act, 1978 to this organisation.
WEST BENGAL v. SWAPAN KUMAR (A.N. Sen, J.) 157

With regards, A

Yours sincerely,
Sd/- Ashok Mitra

Shri R.V. Venkataraman, B
Union Minister for Finance,
North Block,
New Delhi-110001"

Annexure E is a letter by Shri K.S. Krishnaswamy,
Deputy Governor of Reserve Bank to Dr. Ashok Mitra,
State Finance Ministry. The said letter is also here further
c
set out :

"D.O. DNBC No. 2020/102 (Gen) L0-80/81

22nd Oct., 1980 D
Sanchaita Investments.

My Dear Ashok,

You might recall that during my recent visit to E
Calcutta; you had sent me a copy of your D.O. Letter
dated October I, 1980 to Shri Venkataraman, Union
Minister for Finance as also of a letter dated September 30,
1980 addressed to our Chief Officer, DNBC, Calcutta, in
connection with the above firm. I have had the position
examined by our Legal Department. According to them F
(vide extract of the note dated 17th October, 1980, enclosed
for your confidential information) the acceptance of loans
simpliciter by the firm by issue of receipts (as per the
specimen received by us from our Calcutta Office) without
floating any scheme or arrangement would not ordinarily
be covered by the definition of "Prize Chit" and hit by the G
provisions of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation
Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978. However, you may also like
to consult your Legal Adviser on the subject.
H
- 2. As you may know, there are a few writ petitions
pending in the Calcutta Hijjh Court where the interpreta-
158 SUPRBMB COURT REPORTS (1982] 3 S.C.R.

A ti on of section 2 (e) of the Banning Act is involved. In
·that context I have thought it advisable to write to you on
a confidential basis, rather than send a separate official
reply. I shall therefore be grateful if you could leave
instructions with your staff to keep this matter and the
views of ollr legal department strictly confidential.
B With warm regards,

Sd/- K.S. Krishnaswamy

Dr. Ashok Mitra, Miiiister of Finance"
c Further supplementary affidavits had also been filed. On
consideration of the facts and circumstances of this case and the
materials which were placed before the learned Judge, the learned
Judge came to the conclusion that the Act did not apply to the
firm and the learned Judge further held that the searches and
seizures were also wrongful, illegal and i01proper; and in view of
D
his finding the learned Judge quashed the proceedings and directed
the return of all documents and the refund of cash monies seized,
to tbe · writ-·petitioners. It appears from the judgment of the
learned Judge that the matter had been very fully argued before
him and the learned Judge in an elaborate judgment had considered
E the arguments advanced before him and thereupon recorded his
findings and passed the order allol'<ing the said writ petition.

Against the judgment and order passed by the learned Judge,
the State of West Bengal and its three officers have preferred this
appeal with special leave granted by this Court. The writ petitioners,
F the Reserve Bank of India and · Union of India have been made
respondents in this appeal. It does not appear that Union of India
has participated in the proceedings before the learned Judge and no
affidavit on behalf of the Union of India appears to have been filed
before the learned Judge.

G
Mr. Som Nath Chatterjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the appellant has attached the judgment under appeal on the
main ground that the learned Judge in this extraordinary jurisdic-
tion should not have held that the· Act has no application to the
H Respondent Firm and should not have on the basis of the said
finding interfered with the investigation into the affairs of the
firm. Mr. Chatterjee contends that the question of applicability
WEST BENGAL v. SWAPAN KUMAR (A.N. Sen, J.) 159

of the Act will only come for consideration after the investigation
A
has been completed and all relevant materials have been gathered on
such investigation. It is the contention of Mr. Chatterjee that at
the investigation stage, the Court does not interfere and does not
quash any proceedings . before the investigation has been
completed. In support of this contention, Mr. Chatterjee bas
B
referred to a number of decisions of this Court,, I shall consider the
relevant decisions referred to by Mr. Chatterjee at the appropriate
time. Mr. Chatterjee bas submitted that after the investigation has been
completed and all relevant materials have been gathered a charge
under the Act may or may not be framed against the appellant firm
for violation of the provisions of the Act. It is his submission that
if the materials collected do not indicate any infringement of the
c
Act._ no charge against the firm will be preferred, and all the accused
persons will be discharged; if, on the other band, materials gathered
disclose an offences under the Act, proper charge against the accused
persons will be framed and it will be open to the accused persons
to raise the plea in the course of the prosecution that no offence D
under the Act bas been committed by them and the Act has no
application to the transactions of the firm and to the firm.

In the case of State of West Bengal v. S.N. Basak,(1) this Court
held at page 55-56 as follows ;- E

"The powers of investigation into cognizable offences
are contained in Chapter XIV of the 'Code of Criminal
Procedure. Section 154 which is in that Chapter deals
with information in cognizable offences and s. 156 with
investigation into such offences and under these section F
the police has the statutory right to investigate into the
circumstances of any alleged cognizable offence without
authority from a Magistrate and this statutory power of
the Police to investigate catfnot be interfered with by the
exercise of power under s. 561-A of Criminal Procedure
Code. As to the powers of the Judiciary in regard to G
statutory right of the police to investigate, the Privy
Council in King Emperor .v, Khawaja Nazir Ahmed (1944)
L.R.I.A. 203, 212 observed as follows ;-
H.
(I) [1963) 2 S.C.R. 52.
160 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1982] 3 S.C.R.
)
A 'The functions of the judiciary and the police are com-
plementary, not overlapping, and the combination of indivi·
dual liberty with a due observance of law and order is only
to be obtained by leaving each•to exercise its own function,
always, of course, subject to the right of the Court to inter
vene in an appropriate case when moved under s. 491 of
B the Criminal Procedure Code to give directions in the
nature of habeas corpus. In such a case as the present,
however, the court's functions begin when a charge is pre-
ferred before it, and not until then. It has sometime been
thought that s. 561A has given increased powers to the
Courf which it did not possess before that section was
c enacted. But this is not so, the section give no new
powers, it only provides that those which the Court already )

inherently posseses shall be preserved and is inserted as their
Lordships think, lest it should be considered that the only
powers possessed by the Court are th9se expressly conferred
by the Criminal Procedure Code and that no inherent powers ·
D had survived the passing of that Act.'

With the interpretation which has been put on the
statutory, duties and powers of the police and of the powers
of the Court, were in accord. The High Court was
E in error therefore in interfering with the pow.ers of the
police in investigating into the offence which was alleged
in the information · sent to the Officer-in-charge of the
police station".

In the case of State of Bihar and Anr. v. J.A.C. Saldhana
F and Ors.,(1 ) this Court at p. 39-40 observed :

"The next contention ;, that the High Court was in
error in exercising jurisdiction under Art. 226 at a stage
when the Addi. Chief Judicial Magistrate who has
jurisdiction to entertain and try the case has not passed
G
upon the issues before him, by taking upon itself the appre-
ciation of evidence involving facts about which there is an
acrimonious dispute between the parties and given a clean
bill to the suspects against whom the first information
H report was filed. By so directing the learned Addi. Chief

(I) ~1980] 2 S.C.R. 16,
WEST BENGAL v. SWAPAN KUMAR (A.N. Sen, J.) 161

Judicial Magistrate the judgment of the High Court virtiu- A
ally disposed of the case finally. As we are setting aside
the judgment of the High Court with the result that the
case would go back to the learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, it would be imprudent for us to make
any observation on facts involved in the case. There is a
clear cut and well demarcated sphere of activity in the B
field of crime detection and crime punishment. Investiga-
tion of an offence is the field exclusively reserved for the
executive through the police department, the Superintendent
over which vests in the State Government. The executive
which is charged with a duty to keep vigilance over law
and order situation is obliged to prevent crime and if
c
an offence is alleged to have been committed it is its
bounden duty to investigate into the offence and bring the
offender to book. Once it investigates and finds an offence
having been committed it is its duty to collect evidence for
the purpose of proving the offence. Once that is com-
D
pleted and .the investigating officer submits report to the
Court requesting the Court to take cognizance of the
offence under S. 190 of the Code its duty comes to an end.
On a cognizance of the offence being taken by the Court the
police function of investigation comes to an end subject to
the provision contained in S. 173 (B), there commences the E
adjudicatory function of the judiciary to determine whether
an offence has been committed and if so, whether .bY the
person or persons charged .with the crime by the police in
its report to the Court, and to award adequate punishment
according to law for the offence proved to the satisfaction .
of the Court. There is thus a well defined and well demar- Ji'
cated function in the field of crime detection and its
subsequent adjudication between the police and the
Magistrate".

Same views have been reiterated by this Court in the other
decisions which were cited by Mr. Chatterjee. In the case of S.N. G
Sharma v. Bipan Kumar Tiwari,( 1) this Court at p. 951 referred to the
observations of the Privy Council in the case of King Emperor v.
Khwaja Nazir Ahmed(') which have been quoted in the judgment of

(I) [1970] 3 SCR 946. tJ
(2) 71 I.A. 203.
162 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1982] 3 S.C.R.

A this Court in th~ earlier decision and then proceed to hold at )
- pp. 951·952 :

"Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant urged
that such an interpretation is .likely to be very prejudicial
particularly to Officers of the judiciary who have to deal
B with cases brought up by the police and frequently give
decisions which the police dislike. In such cases, the
a
police may engineer false report of a cognizable offence
against the judicial officer and may then harass him by
carrying on a prolonged investigation of the offence .<
made out by the report. It appears to us that, though the
c Code of Criminal Procedure gives to the police unfettered
power to investigate all cases where they suspect that a
cognizable person can always seek a remedy by invoking )
the power of the High Court under Art. 226 of the Cons-
titution under which, if the High Court could be convinced
that the power of investigation has been exercised by a
D police officer mala fide the High Court can always issue a
writ of mandamus restraining the police officer from
misusing his legal powers".

Relying on these decisions and the principles enunciated
E
therein, Mr. Chatterjee has argued that the learned Judge clearly
erred in interfering with the investigation and quashing the pro-
ceedings at the stage of investigatibn before framing of charges
against the accused persons. Mr. Chatterjee argues that there is no
allegation of mala fide in the instant case and the learned Judge has
F also come to a conclusion that there is no case of any mala Ii.de on ··~
the part of the appellants. Mr. Chatterjee has submitted that the I
materials which have been gathered as a result of the investigation
which could be carried on only for a short while go to indicate that
the transactions of the firm are not above board and they are not
what they pretend or purport to be. It is his submission that mate-
G rials gathered clearly indicate that though the loan certificates stipu'.
late interest to be paid@ 12% a much larger sum by way of interest
ranging between 36% to 48% is actually paid to the depositors,
and the amount which is paid in excess of the rate stipulated in
the loan certificates is paid in cash in a clandestine
H manner, depriving and defrauding revenue of its legitimate du~s.
Mr. Chatterjee comments that the payment of interest in this
clandestine manner at a very high rate which is not shown or other·
WEST BENGAL v. SWAPAN KUMAR (A.N. Sen, J.) 163

A
wise accounted for results not only in generation of black.money,
but paralyses the economy of the State. Mr. Chatterjee has further
commented that in view of this allurement to the depositors of
payment of large' sums of money in a clandestine manner, the firm
which has a share-capital of only Rs. 7000 has succeeded in
alluring depositors and the deposits received by the firm with the 3

l
capital of Rs. 7000 now exceed crores of rupees. Mr. Chatterjee
submits that a firm which carries on clandestine business of this
nature is not entitled to invoke the extra-ordinary jurisdiction con-
ferred on the Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution.

c
Mr. Chatterjee has contended that the violation of S. 3 of the
Act has been alleged and it is his contention that the nature of
business carried on by the firm indicates that the firm is conducting
a 'Money Circulation Scheme'. According to Mr. Chatterjee,
'Money Circulation Scheme' by virtue of its definition in S. 2 (c) of
the Act means any scheme' by whatever name called, for the making D
of quick or easy money. It is his argument that the transactions
disclose that the firm and the depositors are both trying to make
quick or easy money, the scheme being that the depositors will
deposit money against certificate stipulating interest to be paid
· @ 12% but they will in fact be paid interest at a much higher rate
and thereby make quick or easy money and the firm invests the E
money received from the depositors Jn such transactions as to enable
them to earn easy or quick money. Mr. Chatterjee has further
argui:_d that money circulation scheme has to be interpreted to mean
any scheme for the making of quick or easy money, or for the
receipt of any money or valuable thing as the consideration for a pro-
mise to pay money on any event or contingency relative or applicable F
to the enroiment 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 subscription. Further investigation
according to Mr. Chatterjee, can only show whether the scheme of
making quick or easy money depends on any contingency relative
in the enrolment of members into the scheme. Mr. Chatterjee sub-
G
mits that the question of proper interpretation of the provisions of
the Act and also of what money circulation scheme means, should
come up only after investigation has been completed and all relevant
materials have been collected. It is Mr. Chatterjee's submission H
that the interpretation of the provisions of the Act and particularly
what 'Money Circulation Schem~' means~ is qo\ to be made in ii
164 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1982) 3 S.C.R.

A hypothetical way in the absence of relevant materials being gathered
on completion of investigation. Mr. Chatterjee has argued that
after all the materials have been collected on completion of the
investigation, it may be that materials may show that the firm is
not conducting a Money Circulation Scheme and no charge against
the firm may at all be preferred; if however, on the other hand, the
B materials, indicate that the firm is conducting a money circulation
scheme and a charge is preferred, it will be open to the accused
persons to take the defence that the business conducted by them is
not one which will be considered to be a money circulation scheme
within the meaning of the Act. As I have earlier observed, the
main grievance of Mr. Chatterjee is that the Court should
c have interfered at the stage of investigation and quashed the
proceedings.

Mr. Chatterjee has next contended that S. 7 of the Act, clearly
empowers a Police Officer not below the rank of an officer-in-charge
D of a police station to enter, search and seize in the manner provided
in the said section. It is Mr. Chatterjee's contention that ·the
searches have been carried ont duly in terms of the provisions con·
tained in the said section and cash money and other books and
documents have been lawfully seized in terms of the provisions
contained in the said section. Mr. Chatterjee has further submitted
E that even if there had been any irregularity in the matter of searches
and seizure, the searches and seizure are not rendered illegal and
void as a result thereof. Various decisions were also referred to by
·Mr. Chatterjee in support of his submissions.

F
Mr. A.K. Sen, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the firm
bas submitted that the learned Judge on a proper consideration of
all the relevant materials and the provisions of the Act has correctly
come to the conclusion that no offence under the Act is
disclosed and the Act bas no application to the firm and
G in that view of the matter the Learned Judge was perfectly justi
fied in quashing the proceeding against the firm, and in directing the
return of the documents and cash money seized by the police to the
firm. Mr. Sen has argued that investigation has to be done when an
offence is disclosed for collecting materials for establishing ar.
H offence. It is the argument of Mr. Sen that if no offence is
disclosed there cannot be any investigation and any investigation
when no offence is disclosed by the F .I.R. and the other materials,
WEST BENGAL v. SWAPAN KUMAR (A.N. Sen, J.) 16S

means unnecessary harassment for the firm and its partners and ille- A
gal and improper deprivation of their liberty and property. Mr. Sen
submits that it is no doubt true that when an offence is disclosed,
the Court normally does not interfere with the investigation into an
offence. He, however, contends that when no offence is disclosed,
it, indeed, becomes the duty of the. Court to interfere with any in·
vestigation which is improperly and illegally carried on to the serious B
prejudice of the persons. In support of this contention Mr. Sen. has
referred to the decision 'of the Judicial Committee in the case of
King Emperor v. Khawaja Nazir Ahmed (supra) and has relied on the
following observations at p. 213:

"No doubt, if no cognizable offence is disclosed and
c
still more, if no offence of any kind is disclosed, the
police would have no authority to undertake investiga·
tion.h

In this connection, Mr. Sen also referred to the decision of
D
this Court in the case of R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab(') and has
placed very strong reliance on the following observations ·at
p. 393:

"Cases may also arise where the allegations in the
First Information Report or the complaint, even if
they are taken at their face value and accepted. in· their
,-
entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged ; in such
cases no question of appreciating evidence arises; it is
a matter merely of looking at the complaint or the
First Information Report to decide whether the F
offence alleged is disclosed or not. In such cases it
would he legitimate for the High Court to hold that·
it would be manifestly unjust to allow the process of
•' the criminal court to be issued against the accused
person."
G
Mr. Sen has also referred to the decision of this Court in Jehan
Singh v. Delhi Administration;(') in which the aforesaid observations
made by Gajendragadkar, J. in the case of R.P. Kapur v. State of
Punjab, (supra) have been reproduced and reiterated. Mr. Sen
H
(1) [1969] 3 S.C.R 388.
(2) [1970] S.C.R. 794.
166 ~UPRBME CoURT REPOilTS [1982] 3 s.c.R.

A further points out that in the case of S.N. Sharma v. Bipin Kumar
Tiwari (supra), this Court at p. 951 recognises that "in appropriate .
cases the aggrieYed person can always seek remedy by invoking
powers of the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution under
which, if the High Court could be convinced that the power of
investigation has been exercised by a police officer mala fide, the
B High Court can always issue a writ of mandamus restraining the
police officer from misusing his legal powers".

Mr. Sen has argued that the Learned Judge having properly
appreciated the legal position has made the correct approach to the
c consideration of the present case. It is his argument that the
Learned Judge has carefully considered the. materials which have
been placed before him including the F.I.R. and he has properly
analysed the provisions of the Act and on a proper interpretation of
the Act and on a proper appreciation of the materials which were
there before the Learned Judge, the Learned Judge has come to the
D conclusion that no offence under the Act is disclosed and the Act
has no application to the firm. Mr. Sen argues th1,1t for a proper
appreciation .of the question whether the materials disclose any
offence under the Act, it is imperative to interpret the Act. He
contends that it will not be a proper approach to leave the question -
of interpretation to the stage after the investigation is complete, as
E according to Mr. Sen, there can be no investigation unless an offence
has been disclosed. Mr. Sen argues that if the materials do not
disclose any offence, no investigation can be permitted to find out
whether as result of the inve~tigation an offence may be disclosed or
not. Mr. Sen submits that investigation can legitimately go on, once
an offence is disclosed for collecting materials for establishing and
F proving the offence. It is the contention of Mr. Sen that the case
of the appellants is that the firm is conducting money circulation
scheme which is banned by the Act. Mr. Sen argues that to find out
whether the firm is conducting a money circulation scheme, it is
necessary to consider what a money circulation scheme is within the
meaning of the Act and to find out whether on the materials alleged
G in the F.I.R. and also in the affidavits, it can be said that the busi- .
ness carried on by the firm is one in the nature of conducting a
money circulation scheme. Mr. Sen has argued that the learned
Judge in bis judgment has correctly interpreted what constitutes
•money circulation scheme' within the meaning of the Act, and it is
the argument of Mr. Sen that such interpretation is absolutely essen-
tial to find out whether the allegations made in the F.I.R. make out
•

·-
WEST BENGAL v. SWAPAN KUMAR (A.N. Sen, J.) 167

a case that the fitm is conducting a money circulation scheme. Mr. A
Sen submits that the materials on record including the allegations
made in the F.LR. even if they are all assumed to be correct, do not
go to show that the firm is conducting a money circulation scheme;
and, in that view of the matter there cau be no investigation, if no
offence under the Act is disclosed. Analysing the F.I.R. and the
other materials which have been_ placed before the Court, Mr.• Sen B
submits that the materials go to indicate-( I) that the firm is accept-
ing deposits or loans from the public for a term against
loan certificates which stipulate payment of interest @ 12%; (2)
though interest is stipulated to be paid @ 12%, the firm, in
fact, is paying interest at a much higher rate. It used to pay
interest @ 48% previously and is now paying interest @ 36%. The
c
amount of interest paid in exce~s of the stipulated rate of 12% is
paid in cash in a clandestine manner to the depositors. The excess
amount of interest paid is not accounted for and results in accummu-
lation of black-money; (3) the firm invests the monies received from
the depositors in high risk investments earning huge amount of
D
unaccounted profits. The investments made by the firm and the
earnings from the investments made, also result in generation of
black-money; (4) because of the allurement of high rate of interest
offered to the depositors, a major part of which is given in un-
accounted black-mon,ey, the firm which has a slfare-capital of
about Rs. 7000 only has received deposits over crores of rupees. E
, -

It is the contention of Mr. Sen that even if all these allegations
which are there in the F.l.R. and also in the other materials which
have been placed before the Court are accepted to be correct, the
said allegations do not go to show that the firm is conducting a
money circulation scheme and do not disclose any. offence under the
F
Act. Mr. Sen in this connection 'has commented that though in
the F.I.R. it has been alleged that the firm is carrying on business of
promoting Prize Chits; no such case was sought to be made out
before the Learned Judge or before this Court and there are no
allegations or materials to show that the firm is carrying on business ·
G
of promoting prize chits; and the only case that has been sought to
be made before the Trial Court and also this Court is that the firm
is carrying on business of conducting or promoting money circula-
tion scheme. Mr. Sen has argued that the money circulation
scheme has been defined in S. 2 (c) of the Act to mean "any scheme, H
by whatever name called, for the making of quick or esay money,
or for the receipt of any money or valuable thing as the considera-

'
•

'
168 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [i982] 3 s.c.i\..

A tion 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 subscription".
According to Mr. Sen, the essential requirements of a money circula-
tion scheme are (1) There must be a scheme for the making of quick
B or easy money on any event of contingency relative or applicable to
the enrolment of members into the ·scheme whether or not such money
is derived from the entrance money of the members of such scheme I
or periodical subscription; or (2) there must be a scheme for the
receipt of any money or valuable thing as the consideration for
) ......
promise to pay money on any event or contingency relative or appli-
c cable to the enrolment of members into a scheme, whether or not
such money or thirig is derived from the entrance money of the
members of such scheme or from periodical subscription. Mr. Sen
submits that neither F.I.R. nor any of the other materials go to
show that the business carried on by the firm is, in any way, in the
nature of conducting or promoting a money circulation scheme. In
D this connection Mr. Sen has drawn our attention to the statement of
objects for the passing of this enactment. Mr. Sen has further
submitted that this enactment which is in the nature of penal one
has to be construed in the event of doubt or ambiguity in a manner
beneficial to the party against whom any accusations is made.
E
Mr. Sen bas further argued that the rules framed under the Act - "''.
can also be taken into consideration for proper interpretation of the
Act and the learned Judge in the instant case was justified in referr-
ing io the rules in construing the provisions of the Act. In this
F connection Mr. Sen bas referred to the decision in Ex parte Wier
In· re Wier(') and has relied upon the following observations at
p. 879;

"We do not think that any other section of the Act
throws any material light upon the proper construction of
G this section, and if the question had depended upon the
Act ·alol)e we should have 4ad great doubt what the pro-
per construction was; but we are of opinion that, where the
construction of the Act is ambiguous and doubtful on any
point, recourse may be had to the rules which have been
H
(I) [1871) 6 Cb. A.C. 875.
WEST BENGAL •• SWAPAN KUMAR IA.N. Sen, J.) 169
A
made by the Lord Chancellor under the authority of the
Act, and if we find that in the rules any particular construc-
tion bas been put on the Act, that i.t is our duty to adopt
and follow that construction".

B
Mr. Sen in this connection has drawn our attention to the relevant
rules and he has argued that the rules leave no room for doubt that
the Act bas no application to the firm and no offence under the Act
has been disclosed by the firm. Mr. Sen has submitted that the
construction of the Act by the Learned Judge is correct and it is his
submission that in view of the provisions of the Act properly c
interpreted, there cannot be any doubt that the Act has no. applica-
tion to the interest case and there can be no question of any violation
o(the said Act by the firm. It is the submission of Mr. Sen that
the approach and the reasoning of the learned Judge are both
sound. Mr. Sen has next contended that the search and seizure
carried on in the instant ·case are als.o illegal and unjustified. It is D
the argument of Mr. Sen that if no offence under the Act is disclosed
and the Act has no application, there cannot be any question of any
search or seizure under the Act. Mr. Sen has argued that the search
and seizure done in the instant case have also not been done in·
confirmity with the provisions of law. Mr. Sen bas sumitted that
learned judge has. correctly come to the conclusion that the search E
and seizure in the instant case were also illegal. In this connection
.• Mr. Sen referred to a number of decisions.

Mr. Ray and Mr. Sibal who followed Mr. Sen mainly adopted
the submissions made by Mr. Sen. Mr. Ray, further contended that F
to be a chit fund or to be a money circulation scheme, an element
of uncertainty or luck is essential. It is the argument of Mr. Ray
, that in so far as the transactions carried on by the firm in the instant
case are concerned, the said element is no where there. Mr. Ray, in
this connection referred to the definition of conventional chit and
has argued that the conventional chits have not been broug4t within G
the purview of this Act. Mr. Ray has drawn our attention to the
decision of this .Court in the case of Srinivasa Enterprises v. Union of
India(') in which the validity of the Act came to be challanged in
this Court and was upheld by this Court.
H
<O (19SOJ 4 sec so1.
i7o sUPRBMB COURT REPORTS [19821 3 s.c.R.
A The appeal before us has been argued at great length. A
number of decisions have also been cited from the Bar. I have
already referred to some of the decisions which were cited before us.
I do not propose to consider all the case which were referred to in
the course of argument by the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the parties as I do not consider the same to be necessary. As I
B have already stated that the matter appears to have been elaborately
argued before the learned Trial Judge who in bis judgment has fully 7
set out the relevant facts and circumstances of the case bas noted ·the
arguments which were advanced before him and the learned Judge
has also referred to a number of decisions. I may, however, note
that Mr. Chatterjee, appearing on behalf of the appellants, has made
c a grievance before us that some of the decisions cited by him have
not been considered by the learned Judge. Though. the matter has
been argued at great length, yet, to my mind, the case appears to rest
in a fairly short compass.

D
In my opinion, the legal position is well-settled. The legal
position appears to be that if an offence is disclosed, the Court will
not normally interfere with an investigation into the case and will
permit investigation into the offence alleged to be completed; if,
however, the materials do not disclose an offence, no investigation
should normally be permitted. The observations of the Judicial
E
Committee and the observations of this Court in the various deci-
sions which I have earlier quoted, make this position abundantly
clear. The pr/positions enunciated by the Judicial Committee and
this Court in the various decisions which I have earlier noted, are
based on sound principles of justice. Once an offence is disclosed, / _.._
.._ __{'f'
F an investigation into the offence must necessarily follow in the inte- I
rests of justice. If, however, no offence is disclosed, an investigation ·
cannot be permitted, as any investigation; in the absence of any
offence being disclosed, will result in unnecessary barrassment to a
party, whose liberty and property may be put to jeopardy for •
nothing. The liberty and property of any individual are secred and
G sacrosanct and the Court zealously guards them and protects them.
An investigation is carried on for the purpose of gathering necessary
materials for establishing and proving an offence which is disclosed.
When an Qffence is disclosed, a proper investigation in the interest
of justice becomes necessary to collect materials for establishing ·
the offence, and for bringing the o.ffender to book. In the absence
" of a proper investigation in a case where an offence is disclo-
sed, the offender may succeed in escaping from the consequen-
WEST BENGAL v. SWAPAN KUMAR (A.N. Sen, J:) 171

ces and the offender may go unpunished to the deleriment of A
the cause of justice and. the society at large. Justice requires
that a person who commits an offence has to be brought to
to book and must be punished for the same. If the Court interferes
( with the proper investigation in a case where an offence has been
: ' disclosed, the offence will go unpunished to the serious deteriment
of the welfare of the society and the cause of the justice suffers. It
B

'
l
is on the basis of this principle that the Court normally does not
interfere with the investigation of a case where an offence has been
disdosed. The decision on which Mr. Chatterjee has relied are
based on this sound principle, and in all these cases, an offence had
been disclosed. Relying on the well-settled and sound principle that
the Court should not interfere with an investigation into an offence
c
at the stage of investigation and should allow· the investigation to
be completed, this Conrt had made the observations in the said
decisions which I have earlier quoted reiterating and reaffirming the
sound principles of justice. The decisions relied on by Mr. Chatterjee,
do not lay down, as it cannot possibly be laid down as a broad D
proposition of law, that an.investigation must necessarily be permit-
ted to continue and will not be prevented by the Court at the stage
of investigation even if no offence is disclosed. While adverting to
this specific question as to whether an investigation can go on even
if no offence is disclosed, the judicial Committee in the case of
King Emperor v. Khwaja Nizam Ahmed (supra) and this Court in R.P. E
Kapur v. State of Punjab (supra), Jehan Singh v. Delhi Administra-
tion (supra), S.N. Sharma v. Bipin Kumar Tiwari (supra) have clearly
laid down that no investigation can be permitted and have made the
observations which I have earlier quoted and which were relied on
by Mr. Sen. As I have earlier observed this proposition is not
only based on sound logic but is also based on fundamental F
principles of justice. as a person against whom no offence is dis-
closed, cannot be put to any harassment by the process of investi-
'·
gation which is likely to put his persoaal liberty and also property
which are considered secred and sacroscent into prril and jeopardy.

Whether an offence has been disclosed or not must necessarily G
depend on the facts and circumstances of each particular case. In
considering whether an offence into which an investigation is made
or to be made, is disclosed or not, the Court has mainly to take
into consideration the complaint or the F.I.R. and the Court may in
appropriate cases take into consideration the relevant facts and
H
circumstances of the case. On a consideration of" ali the relevant
172 SUPR~ME COURT itilPORTS (!~82] ~ S.C.R

materials, the Court has to come to the conclusion whether an
offence is disclosed or not. If on a consideration of the relevant
materials, the Court is satisfied that an offence is disclosed, the Court ,
will normally not interfere with the investigation into the offence
and will generally allow the investigation into the offence to be
completed for collecting materials for proving the offence. If, on the
B other hand, the Court on a consideration of the relevant materials
is satisfied that no offence is disclosed, it will be the duty of the
Court to interfere with any investigation and to stop the same to
prevent any kind of uncalled for and unnecessary harassment to an
individual.

c In the instant case, the offence complained of is violation of
the Act. For a proper adjudication of the case and for a proper
appreciation of the question, it, therefore, becomes necessary to
consider the relevant materials and also the provisions of the Act
for being satisfied as to whether the relevant materials go to indicate
any violation of the Act and disclose any offence under the Act.
D The materials are mainly contained in the F.I.R. which has been
earlier set out in its entirety. An analysis of the F.I.R. mentions
the following allegations on the basis of which the said F.I.R. has
been lodged :

I. Sanchaita Investments is a partnership Firm. Its
E partners are Behari Prasad Murarka, Sri Sambhu
Mukherjee and Sri Swapan Kumar Guba The firm
was started in and around 1975.

2. The Firm bad been offering fabulous interest @ 48%
F to its members until very recently. The rate of interest
has of late been reduced to 36% per annum. ' I

3. Such high rate' of interest were and are being paid
even though the loan certificate receipts show rate of
interest to be 12% only.
G
4. Thus, the amount in excess of 12 % so paid clearly
shows that 'Money Circulation Scheme' is being pro-
moted and conducted for the making of quick and/or
, er.sy money, prizes and/or gifts
H
5. Prizes or gifts in cash are also being awarded to agents
promotors and members too.
WEST BENGAL v. SWAPAN KUMAR (A.N. Sen, J.) 173

A
6. In view of the above, Sarvshri Behari Prasad Murarka,
Sambhu Mukherjee and Swapan Kumar Guha appears
to have been carrying on the business in the trade
name of 'Sanchaita Investments' in prize chits and
money circulation Scheme in violation of S. 2 of the
Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) 8
Act, 1978,

l The other materials are contained in paragraphs 6, 7, 8, 9, 22,
27 and 30 of the affidavit and the two documents, namely, the arti-
cle published in the Newspaper 'Business Standard' dated 1611.1980
and ·the documents seized in the course of searches. I have t
earlier set out in extenso the statement made in the said paragraphs
of the affidavit filed on behalf of the State. A copy of the article
has been enclosed to the affidavit filed on behalf of the State. The
document seized in the course of searches and handed over to
Court in the course of the arguments was a letter addressed by an
officer of the Air Force to the firm in which the officer makes a D
grievance that the Fir'? which was paying interest @ 48% has now
reduced the same to 36% in view of advances made to political
parties. The letter further records the fact that the firm hopes to·
pay the enhanced rate of interest of 48% in the near future. An
analysis of these materials suggest that the firm is carrying on
activities of accepting deposits from the members promosing to pay E
them interest on such deposits at an agreed rate of 12% as stipulated
in the loan certificate; but, in fact, it has been paying interest to
them at much higher rate of interest The materials further indicate
. that the firm is making high risk investments of the monies received
from the depositors and has also been advancing monies to political
parties. F

The crux of question is whether these allegations disclose an
offence under the Act namely, violation of S. 3 of the Act even if all
these allegations are deemed to be correct.
G
The question whether these allegations disclose an offence
under the Act and can be the basis for any suspicion that an offence
under S. 3 of the Act has been committed or not, must necessarily
"'.. depend on the provisions of the Act and its proper interpretation.
H
The Act has been enacted for implementing the recommenda-
tions of a Study Group of the Reserve aank of India under tll~
174 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1982) 3 S.C.R.

A Chairmanship of Shri James S. Raj the then Chairman of the Unit
Trust of India, constituted for examining in depth the provisions
of Chapter IIIB of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 and the
directions issued thereunder to Non-Banking Companies in order to
assess their adequacy in the context of ensuring the efficacy of the
monetary and credit policies of the country and affording a degree
B of protection to the interests of the depositors who place their
savings with such companies. Paragraph 2 of the Statement of
Objects and Reasons of the Act states :

"Prize chits would cover any kind of arrangement
c under which moneys are collected by way. of subscriptions,
contributions, etc. and prizes, gifts, are awarded. The
prize chit is really a form of lottery. Its basic feature is
that the foreman or promoter who ostensibly charges no
commission collects regular subscriptions from the mem-
bers. Once a member gets the prize, he is very often not
D required to pay further instalments and his name is dropped
from further lots. The institutions conducting prize
chits are private limited comp.anies with a very low
capital base contributed by the promotoers, directors
or their close relatives. Such schemes . confer monetary
benefit only on a few members and on the promotor com·
E panies. The Group had, therefore, recommended that
prize chits or money circulation schemes, by whatever
name called, should be totally banned in the larger interests
of the public and suitable legislative measures. should be
undertaken for purpose."
· 1
F '

The relevant portion of paragraph 3 of the Statement of
Objects and Reasons reads as follows :-

The Bill proposes to implement the above recommenda.
G tion of the Group by providing for the banning of the
promotion or conduct of any prize chit or money circula-
tion scheme, by whatever name called, and of the participa·
tion of any person in such chit or scheme. The Bill pro-
vides for a period of two years within which the existing
H units carrying on the business of prize chits or money
circulation schemes may be wound up and provides for
penalties. and other incidental matters."
WEST BENGAL v. SWAPAN KUMAR (A.N. Sen, J.) 175
,.,(.
It is, therefore, clear that the main object of the Act is to ban pro- A .
motion or conduct of any Prize Chit or money circulation scheme, by
whatever name called, and of the participation of any person in such
chit or scheme. S. 2 of the Act deals with definitions. Money Cir-
culation Scheme is defined in S. 2 (c) in the following words:-

"Money circulation Scheme' means any scheme, by B
whatever name called, for the making of quick or easy
money, or for the receipt of any money or valuable thing

l 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 mem- c
bers of such scheme or periodical subscriptions."

Prize Chit is defined in S. 2 (e) in the following terms :-

"prize chit' includes any transaction or arrangement
by whatever name called under which a person collects D
whether as a promotor, foreman, agent or in any other
capacity, monies in one lump sum or in instalments
by way of contributions or subscriptions or ·by sale of
unit, certificates or other instruments or in any other
manner or as membership fees or admission fees or service
charges to or in respect of any savings,. mutual benefits, E
thrift or any other scheme or arrangement by whatever
name called, and utilises the monies so collected or any
part thereof or the income accruing from investment or other
use of such monies for all or any of the following purposes,
namely:-
.\ (i) giving or awarding periodically or otherwise to a speci-
F
'' fied number of subscribers as determined by lot,
draw or in any other manner, prizes or gifts in cash
or in kind, whether or not the recipient of the prize or
gift is under a liability to make any further payment in
respect of such scheme or arrangement; G

(ii) refunding to the subscribers or such of them as have
not won any prize or gift, the whole or part of the
subscriptions, cont~ibutions or other monies collected H
with or without any bonus, premium, interest or other
advantage by what~v~r name ~alled, on the termin<1·
\
'
176 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [198213 s.c.R.

A tion of the scheme or arrangement, or on or after the
expiry of the period stipulated therein, hut does not
include a conventional chit.

A Conventional Chit which is specifically excluded in the
definition of prize chits in S. 2 (c) (ii) is defined in S. 2 (a) as
8 follows:-

"Conventional Chit" means a transaction whether
called chit, chit fund, kuri or by any other name by or
under which a person responsible for the conduct of the
chit enters into an agreement with a specified number of
c persons that every one of them shall subscribe a certain
sum of money (or certain quantity of grain instead) by
way of periodical instalments for a definite period and
that each subscriber shall, in his turn, as determined by
lot or by auction or by tender or in such other manner as
may be provided for in the chit agreement, be entitled to a
D prize amount".

S. 3 of the Act the violation of which alleged reads :-

"No person shall promote or conduct any prize chit
E or money circulation scheme, or enrol as a member to any
such chit or scheme, or participate in it otherwise, or
receive or remit any money in pursuance of such chit or
scheme."

S. 7 of the Act provides :
F
"(!) It shall be lawful for any police officer not below
the rank of an officer in charge of a police station :

(a) to enter, if necessary by force, whether by day or
night with such assistance as he considers necessary
G any premises which he has reason to suspect, are
being used for purposes connected with the promotion
or conduct of any prize chit or money circulation
scheme in contravention of the provisions of this Act;
H
(b) to search the said premises and the persons whom he
Jllay find therein ;
WEST BENGAL v. SWAPAN KUMAR (A.N. Sen, J.) 177

(c) to take into custody and produce before any judicial A
Magistrate all such persons as are concerned or against
whom a complaint has been made or credible informa-
tion has been received or a reasonable suspicion exists
of their having been concerned with the use of the
said premises for purposes connected with, or with the
promotion or conduct of, any such prize chit or money B
circulation scheme as aforesaid;

(d) to seize all things found in the said premises which
are intended to be used, or reasonably suspected to
have been used, in connection with any such prize or
money circulation scheme as aforesaid. c
(2) Any officer authorised by the State Government
may:-

(a) at all reasonable times, enter into and search any pre-
mises which he has reason to suspect, are being used D
for the purposes connected with, or conduct of, any
prize chit or money circulation scheme in contra-
vention qf the provisions of this Act ;

(b) examine any person h•ving the control of, or employed
in conne.ction with, any such prize chit or money cir- E
culation scheme ;

(c) order the production of any documents, books or
records in the possession or power of any person
having the control of, or employed in connection with,
any such prize chit or money circulation scheme ; F
and

(3) AU searches under this section shall be made
in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973".
G
S. 13 confers necessary powers to make rules and reads as
under:-

"(!) The State Government may, by notification in
' the Official Gazette and in consultation with the Reserve H
Bank, make rules for the purpose of ~~rrying out the pro.
visions of the Act.
178 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1982) 3 S.C.lt.
A (2) Jn particular and without prejudice to the general-
ity of the foregoing power, such rules may provide for :-

(a) the office of the Reserve Bank to whom full informa-
tion regarding any prize chit or money circulation
B scheme may be furnished under the first proviso to sub-
section (I) of Section 12, and the form in which and
the period within which such information may be
furnished;

(b) the particulars relating to the winding up plan of the
.C business relating to prize chits or money ciculation
schemes."

The complaint alleges violation of S. 3 of the Act. In other
words, the complaint is that the firm )s promoting or conducting a
D prize chit or a money circulation scheme. The definition of prize
chit has been earlier set out. I have also earlier analysed the
F.I.R. and the other materials on the basis of which the com-
plaint is made and the materials which have been placed before the
Court. The materials do not indicate any thing to disclose that
the firm is promoting or conducting any prize chit. I may also here
E note that no argumenis have been advanced on behalf of the
appellants that the firm is promoting or conducting any prize chit;
and in my opinion, rightly, as the allegations do not give any
indication whatsoever of any case of a prize chit being promoted
or conducted by the firm. The argument on behalf of the appellants
has been that the firm is promoting or conducting a money circula-
F tion scheme. Though the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the
Act may suggest that the prize chit and a money circulation scheme
are more or less of like nature, yet, in view of the· separate defini-
tions ofthese two being given in cl. 2 of the Act and in view of the
further fact that S. 3 speaks of prize chit or money circulation
scheme, each of the aforesaid must be considered to be separate and
G distinct for the purposes of the Act; and promoting or conducting
either prize chit or any money circulation scheme or both must be
held to be an offence under the Act.

I shall now proceed to consider whether the materials disclose
that the firm is promoting or conducting a money circulation scheme
l have already set Ql!t the definition of moner circulation schem~
WEST BENGAL v. SWAPAN KUMAR (A.N. Sen, J.) 179

J as given in S. 2 (c) of the Act. On a plain reading of the said
A
definition, the requirements of a money circulation scheme are :

(i) there must be a scheme;

(ii) there must be members of the scheme;
B
(iii) the scheme must be for the making of quick or easy
money on any event or contingency relative or appli-
cable to the enrolment of members into the scheme
or there must be a scheme for the receipt of any money
or valuable thing as the consideration for a promise
to pay money on any event or contingency relative c
or applicable to enrolment of members into the
scheme;

(iv) the event of contingency relativo or applicable to the
enrolment of members into the scheme will however
not he in any way affected by the fact whether or not D
such money or thing is derived from the entrance
money of the members of such scheme or periodical
subscription.

On a proper interpretation of this definition, it clearly appears
that the condition in the said definition 'on any event or contingency
E
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 subscription'
qualifies both the provisions contained therein, namely, (i) money
circulation scheme means a scheme by whatever name called, for
--.\- F
the making of quick or easy money, (ii) or money circulation
scheme means any scheme for the receipt of any money or valuable
thing as the .consideration for the promise to pay money. Taking
into consideration the language used in the section and particularly
the two commas, one after the words "easy money" and the other
after the words "pay money", it becomes clear that this stipulation G
is intended to cover both; and the interpretation contended for by
Mr. Chatterjee that the further provision in the definition namely,
"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 entrance money of such scheme or periodical subscrip- H
tion" applies only to the second part, namely, money circulation
scheme 'means any scheme, by Wh~tever name called, for the receipt
180 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1982) 3 S.C.R.

of any money or valuable thing as the consideration for a promise
A to pay money, is not sound'. On this interpretation, of Mi'.
Chatterjee, the provision in the definition, namely, 'money circula-
tion scheme means any scheme by whalever name called for the
making of quick or esay money' will indeed become vague and
meaningless.
B
For properly appreciating whether the offence of promoting or
conducting a money circulation scheme is disclosed or not, it
becomes necessary to consider whether the materials, even if they
are all accepted to be correct, indicate that the business carried on
by the firm satisfies the requirements of money circulation scheme
c and disclose an offence under the Act.

The materials show that the firm accepts loans or deposits from
general public for a term· against loan certifica~es which stipulate
payment of interest @ 12%. Materials also indicate that the firm
D pays stipulated amount of interest and further pays a much larger
amount of interest in a clandestine manner to the persons who
invest their monies in the firm against loan certificates. The mate-
rials further indicate that the persons who have invested their monies
with the firm against loan certificates used to receive, in fact, the
stipulated amount of interest @ 12% and also usecl to receive an
E
additional sum as further interest @ 36% in a clandestine manner.
The materials also indicate that this further rate of interest @ 36%
paid clandestinely in additional to the stipulated rate of 12% has
been reduced now to 24%, because of investments by the firm with
politieal parties. In other words, the materials go to show that
F though the rate of interest stipulated in the loan certificate was 12%
the firm used to pay altogether interest@ 48% previously and is now
paying interest @ 36% inclusive of payment of interest stipulated in
the loan certificate. The materials also indicate that the firm invest
the deposits or loans received from the general public in high risk /
investments. The materials, however, do not show that the payment
G of interest at the stipulated rate of 12% or at any enhanced rate in
excess of the stipulated rate depends on any event or contingency
or relative or applicable to the enrolment of any new depo-
sitors. The materials also do not indicate that the firm makes
any discrimination in the matter of payment of interest to its
H depositors. The materials also do not indicate that the payment
of interest to the depositors whether at the stipulated rate or at the
~nhanced rate is dependent on any element of chance and the
WEST llENGAt v. SWAPAN KUMAR {A.N. Sen, J.) i8!
A
materials do not indicate that any kind of gifts is made by the firm
to the depositors in addition to the payment of interest.

The first question that requires to be considered is whether
these materials go to indicate that there is any scheme The word
'scheme' has not been defined in the Act. The word 'scheme', B
however, has been defined in the Rules, in cl. 2 (g) thereof. Cl. 2 (g)
of the Rules state that a "scheme means a money circulation scheme
or . as the case may be a prize chit as defined in cl. (c) and (e)
respectively of s. 2". The word 'scheme' as contemplated in S. 2 (c)
of the Act is therefore, to be money circulation scheme within the
meaning of the Act. To be a money circulation scheme, a scheme
must be.for the making of quick or easy money on any event or
contingency relative or applicable to the enrolment of the members
into the scheme. The scheme has necessarily to be judged as a whole
both from the view point of the promotors and also of the members.
Even if it be assumed that the firm may be considered to be the
promotor and the persons who invest their monies in the firm are D
members, the question has still to be considered whether investments
of the monies with the firm in expectation of getting interest@ 48%
and a big part of it in black in clandestine manner, can be said from
the view point of the depositors that the investment is for the making
of qnick or easy money. If any individual invests is money in
expectation of getting a high return, say 50% or more and there is E
nothing clandestine in the transaction which is above board, can it
be said that the investment is for making easy money or quick
money? Various individuals may invest their monies in their
business which may yield very high profits. Many individuals
also may indulge in speculative business in expectation of high
return of their money and may succeed or may not succeed in
F
speculative transactions. If such transactions are made openly and
not in violation of any law, I have no doubt in my mind that it can
never be said that . such investment has been made for making
quick or easy money, and such transactions can never come within
the scheme for making•easy or quick money as enumerated in the
Act.. The further question that, however, arises for consideration is
G
whether the position will be any different, if a part of the transac-
tion is not above board and is secretive in nature. To my mind,
that will not make arly difference and the transaction cannot be con-
sidered to be a scheme for the making of quick or easy money, H
though the transaction may offend against revenue laws or any
other law. Transactions in black money do not come within the
182 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1982] 3 s.c.ll.

A mischief of this Act. Judged from the point of view of the depofr
tors, it cannot, therefore, be said that their investment in the firm
for high return by way of interest, part of which is above board and
a part of which is clandestine, will form any part of a scheme for
making easy or quick money. ·It is further to be noted that this
return on investment by way of interest is not dependent on any
B event or contingency whatsoever and has nothing to do with any
event or contingency relative or applicable to the enrolment of any
new members, even if the depositors be assumed to be members. )
.___.
c Judged from the point of view of the firm, there is nothing
to indicate that the firm makes any investment in consultation with
its depositors. The materials only indicate that the firm indulges
in high risk investments and also advances monies to political
parties. Neither of these acts appears to be illegal and they do not
go to show that the firm makes easy or quick money. It is no doubt
D true that the materials go to show that the firm plays a larger
amount by way of interest than payable on the basis of the rates
stipulated in the loan certificate and the firm pays the excess amount
of interest to the depositors in a clandestine manner. The clandestine
manner of payment of interest in excess of the stipulated rate does not,
in any way, inclicate the existence of any scheme for making quick or
E easy money. It is again to be pointed out that in any event the mate-
rials do not indicate that the payment of interest by the firm in excess
..J..
of the stipulated rate is in any way dependent on any event or con-
tingency. There is nothing to indicate any scheme for the receipt
of the money by the firm from its depositors as a consideration for / -
promise to pay the interest in excess of the stipulated rate and also ' -,.,
F to pay back principal amount on the expiry of the term dependent
in any way on any event or contingency relative or applicable to the
enrolment of new depositors, considering the depositors to be mem- /
bers. I am, therefore, of the opinion, that not any, of the require-
ments of a money circulation scheme is satisfied in the instant case.
As there is no money circulation scheme, there can be no scheme
G
as contemplated in the Act in view of the definition of scheme in
the Rules. The materials, appear to disclose violation of revenue
laws. They, however, do not disclose any violation of the Act.
The materials do not disclose that the firm is promoting or con-
H ducting money circulation scheme and the question, therefore, of
W~ST.BENGAL v. SWAi>AN KUMAR (A.N. Sen, J.) 183

A
any violation of S. 3 of the Act does not arise in the instant case.
As the firm is not conducting or promoting a money circulation
scheme, and as no case is made that the firm is conducting or pro-
moting a chit fund, the Act cannot be said to be applicable to the
firm. In my opinion, it does not become necessary to refer .to the
rules for coming to the conclusion. I may, however, add that a B
considertion of the rules also clearly lends support to the conclusion
to which I have come. I find that the learned Jud.ge has very care-
fully and elaborately considered all the aspects in his judgment and
in the course of elaborate discussion, he has noted all the con-
tentions raised by the parties and has careful!~ considered
them. The learned Judge on a careful consideration of all c
aspects and on a proper interpretation of the Act, has expressed
the view that no olfence under the Act is disclosed against the firm
which does not conduct or promote money circulation scheme or a
chit fund and the Act has no application to the firm. It may also
be noted that the learned Judge has also in his judgment referred to
the report of the Reserve Bank and the opinion of the learned D
Advocate General of the State which lent support to the view taken
by the learned Judge. The view expressed by the learned Judge
that the materials do not disclose that the firm is promoting or
conducting a money circulation scheme and the Act has, therefore,
no application to the firm meets with my approval and I agree wiih
the same.
E

Before concluding it will be pro per to refer to the decision of
. this Court in'the case of Srinivas Enterprises v. Union of India(')
which were relied on before the learned Judge and has been con-
sidered by me. In this case, the validity of the Act was challenged
before this Court while upholding the validity of the Act for reasons
F
'i
' stated in the judgment, Krishna Iyer, J. who spoke for the Beneh
observed at p. 514 as follows :-

"In many situations, the poor and unwary have to be
saved the seducing processes resorted by unscrupulous G
racketeers who glamourize and prey upon the gambling
instinct to get rich quick through prizes. So long as there is
the restless spell of a chance, though small, of securing a
prize, though on paper, people change the prospect by
ff
c11 [1980J 4 sec so1.
184 SUPREME C<il1RT REPORTS (1982) 3 s.c.a.

A subscribing to the speculative scheme only to lose what they
had. Can you save moths from the fire except by putting
out the fatal flow ? ·once this prize facet of the chit scheme
is given up, it becomes substantially a 'conventional chit'
and the ban of the law ceaS'es to operate. We are unable to
pursuade ourselves that the State is wrong in its assertion,
8 based upon expert opinions that a complete ban of prize
chits is an everall or excessive blow. Therefore, we decline
to strike down the legislation on the score of Article 19 (!)
(f) and (g) of the Constitution."

c As I have earlier noticed the materials iu the instant case do
not disclose any element of chance in the matter of business carried
:.1
on by the firm. It may however, be said that these observations which
were made while dealing with a case of chit fund are not of very
great assistance while considering what may be a money circulation
D scheme within the meaning of the Act.

As no offence under the Act is at all disclosed, it will be
manifestly unjust to allow the process of criminal code to. be issued
or continued against the firm and to allow any investigation which
E will be clearly without any authority.

In the view that I have taken, I do not consider it necessary
to deal with other aspects namely, as to whether the "searches and
seizures were lawfully and properly done.
F
I, therefore, hold that the proceedings against the firm and
its partners arising out of the F.I.R. must be quashed as the F.l.R.
and the other materials do not disclose any offence under the Act
and as such no investigation into the affairs of the firm under the
Act can be permitted or allowed to be continued. I, accordingly,
G quash.the proceedings against that firm and its partners and order
that no investigation under the Act into affairs of the firm is to be
carried on or continued.

H I agree with the final order proposed by the learned Chief
Justice in regard to the return of the documents, books an!l cash.
WBST BBNOAL v. SWAPAN KUMAR ( A.N. Sen, J.) t 85

The appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed. I, however, make A
no order as to costs.

The Judgment in Civil Appeal No. 1130 of ~1981 will also
govern Civil Appeal No. 1129 of 1981.
B
N.V.K. Appeals dismissed.
\