ORDER
M.M. Kumar, J.
1. This petition filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity, Cr. P. C.) prays for grant’ of regular bail to the petitioner pending trial in case FIR No. 276 dated 27-11-2002 registered at Police Station Sector 26, Chandigarh under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prize Chits & Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978 (for brevity, ‘the Act’).
2. A perusal of the first information report shows that investigation was ordered to be conducted by the Finance Secretary, Chandigarh Administration vide his letter dated 24-10-2002 addressed to the Inspector General of Police (Economic Offence Wing), The Finance Secretary made a reference to the letter received by them from the Reserve Bank of India. Department of Non Banking Supervision, Central Vista, Chandigarh. The subject of the first information report is ‘Market Intelligence Activities – On Line Job Work Com. Pvt. Ltd’. The company has established its corporate office at S. C. O. No. 34, Sector 26, Chandigarh. According to the allegations, the company offered two business schemes, namely. On Line Job Work and Multi Level Marketing (for brevity, ‘M. L. M. Scheme’). In the M. L. M, Scheme a business associate has to enroll further business associates against payment of Rs. 16,500/- per enrolment being the cost of product, training and registration charges. For each sub-business associate enrolled, the business associate gets a commission of Rs. 5,500/- from the company and the incentive goes on increasing as revealed by the brochure and the application form. The company is not rendering any worthwhile service or product in lieu of the amount of incentive for enrolling new members. The total amount of incentive as indicated in the brochure runs to Rs. 15,000 crores under the home based business plan. The total direct incentive amounts to Rs. 22490.13 crores for’ effecting Rs. 2,15,23.359/- crores sales under the said plan. It is alleged that the company is mainly attracting people by offering hefty commission and enrolling members. It is basically running a pyramid scheme with some camouflages. When confronted with the observations by the Investigating agency, it was claimed that it is adhering to the provisions of the Act while launching plan under the M. L. M. Scheme. However, no details have been furnished showing the compliance of the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act. The first information report further shows the ingredients of various sections constituting the cognizable offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act. The investigation has further been directed to find out the amount collected by the company, number of business associates appointed and to take such action as is considered necessary under the Act against the company, its officials and against all those persons who are connected with the conduct of business in any manner under Section 5 of the Act. It is clear from the order of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate that the company has enrolled about 7390 members after charging a sum of Rs. 16,500/- from each one of them. It has collected about a sum of Rs. 12,19,35,000/- crores. Therefore, the company is alleged to have committed offences under Sections 406/420 I.P.C. read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Act.
3. The petitioner filed an application for bail before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh which was dismissed on 6-11 -2003 and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh has upheld the aforementioned order vide his order dated 13-11-2003. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court. It is appropriate to mention that an application filed under Section 438 Cr. P. C. by the petitioner and others was rejected by this Court on 23-9-2003.
4. Mr. R.S. Cheema, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act are triable by a Magistrate and the maximum sentence provided for those offences is three years. He has maintained that the offences under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B I.P.C. are not made out. He has referred to the Judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge to argue that offences under Sections 406/420/120-B I.P.C. are not attracted to the allegations made in the present case. He has further submitted that both the Courts below have rejected the bail application of the petitioner merely relying upon the order dated 23-9-2003 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. No. 38062-M of 2003 rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for pre-arrest bail made under Section 438 Cr. P. C. The learned counsel has then argued that the trial of an accused triable by a Magistrate is required to be concluded within a period of 60 days from the first date fixed for taking evidence as provided by Section 437(6) Cr. P. C. falling which the accused is entitled to be released on bail. The learned counsel has stated that the petitioner was arrested on 29-10-2003 and he is in custody for more than three months.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent, however has opposed the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and has argued that gullible public is being eluded by the petitioner. The learned counsel has emphasised that the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act are fully applicable inasmuch as the petitioner has been running and promoting a scheme for making of quick or easy money. According to the learned counsel, no service is being rendered by the company of the petitioner to the public, which shows that it is a scheme depending on the contingency of enrolment of members into scheme.
6. I have thoughtfully considered the rival contentions raised by the parties and am of the view that this petition is liable to be dismissed.
7. In cases Involving public mischief resulting into serious offences Involving huge finance committed against the society at large, the Court must keep in view the potential threat, which may cause huge financial set back to the gullible public. The Act has been enacted by the Parliament with the sole aim of banning any such scheme, which aims at making of quick or easy money and when making of quick or easy money is shown to depend upon an event or a contingency applicable to the enrolment of the members into that scheme, then the provisions of the Act, would certainly get attracted. It has also come on record that the petitioner has collected from the general public funds which are worth crores. His release on bail, therefore, would further encourage him to indulge in the same activities. Moreover, the allegations under Sections 406 and 420 of the I. P. C., have also been levelled, where, the punishment may be much more than three years as provided by the provisions of the Act.
8. The arguments of the learned counsel that the offences committed under the Act, are triable by a Magistrate and it is debatable whether the offences under Sections 406/420/120-B of the I. P. C., are attracted to the present case have not impressed me because it is not mandatory to grant bail in all cases triable by a Magistrate. At this stage, it is not possible to express any opinion on the applicability of Sections 406/420/120-B of the I. P. C. It is also relevant to mention that Criminal Misc. No. 53809-M of 2002 for quashing the F. I. R., was filed, which was dismissed on July 3,2003 with the observation that prima facie, the allegations made in the F. I. R. show that scheme floated by the petitioner is a Money Circulation Scheme. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
9. For the reasons stated above, this petition fails and the same is dismissed.