IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09/04/2003
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.KANAGARAJ
CRL.O.P. No.2347 of 2003 and CRL.O.P. No. 4617 of 2003
and
Crl.M.P.Nos.840, 841 & 1603 of 2003
Gold Quest International Pvt. Ltd.,
rep. by its Director A.Pushpam,
The Rain Tree Place, B-Wing,
9th Floor, #7, MCNichols Road,
Chetpet, Chennai-31. ... Petitioner in
CrlOP.2347/2003
Conybio Healthcare (INDIA) Private
Limited., rep. by its Regional Director,
Nresh K.Thapa,
137 A Jawaharlal Nehru Salai,
Eekattuthangal,
Chennai-97 ...Petitioner in
Crl.O.P.4617/2003
-Vs-
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
rep. by its Secretary to
Government, Home Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai-9.
2.Director General of Police,
Crime Branch, Egmore,
Chennai. .. Respondents 1&2
in both CrlOPs.
The Director General of Police,
Economic Offences Wing,
Chennai. ..3rd Respondent in
CrlOP.2347/2003
The Inspector General of Police,
Economic Offences Wing,
Chennai. ..3rd Respondent in
CrlOP.4617/2003
Criminal Original petitions are filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C
as stated therein.
For petitioners: Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram
senior counsel for
Mr.S.silambanan
For respondents : Mr.Abudukumar Rajarathinam
Govt.Advocate(Crl.Side)
:COMMON ORDER
The petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.2347 of 2003 has filed the
Criminal Original Petition to direct respondents 2 and 3 to withdraw all
instructions issued by them to various law enforcement agencies and to the
Police of various districts in the State of Tamil Nadu, whereby the
respondents have asked these agencies to initiate action against the
petitioner under the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes ( Banning) Act
(hereinafter referred to as the Act) and/or under Section 420 IPC.
2. The petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.4617 of 2003 has filed the
Criminal Original Petition to direct the respondents, their men, agents and
subordinates to restrain from interfering with the business of the petitioner
as long as the business is conducted lawfully and without indulging in multi
level marketing.
3. So fa r as the Crl.O.P.No.2347 of 2003 is concerned, the
petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the petition would submit that
the petitioner company is registered in January, 20 01 under the Indian
Companies Act and it is a sister concern of Goldquest International Limited
based at Hong Kong; that Goldquest International is a numismatic company
dealing with Gold products and has partnered with B.H.Mayer’s Mint from
Germany to produce mint proof premier Numismatic, uncirculated legal tender
products; that Goldquest International was the largest distributor of Olympic
commemorative sets of the Olympic games, which took place in Sydney in the
year 2000; that it has 5,00,000 customers and has operating offices in eight
countries; that it is one of the world’s largest and most respected fine art
and gold coin and jewellery distributors and retailer and works with reputable
Government and privately owned mints; that as part of its operations in India,
the petitioner has entered into agreements with a number of organizations like
the Shri Kanchi Kamakoti Peetam, the Shivaji Prabhu Charities Trust etc; that
the programme is based on Customer Referral System; that the programme offers
the customer, who enrolls with the company on payme nt of a fixed sum, a gold
coin of numismatic value; that if the customer refers new customers, the
company pays commission to the said customer; that the petitioner has sought
the approval of the Reserve Bank of India and the Ministry of Commerce and
Industries to import uncirculated coins; that many people are benefitted by
the company’s interactive customer referral programme; that the petitioner’s
activities are all strictly legal and transparent.
4. The petitioner would further submit that however, on an
erroneous understanding of the scope of the Act, ten customers of the
petitioner were illegally detained by the Madurai Crime Branch on 24.6.2002 on
the basis of a complaint; that the complainant was not a customer who felt
cheated by the programme of the petitioner; that a member of the public was
asked by the police to lodge the complaint and therefore, the complaint was
not a genuine one and the FIR was belatedly filed with charges under Sections
420 and 511 IPC; that later the complaint was disposed of by the Metropolitan
Magistrate, Madurai as mistake of fact; that the respondent alleged that the
business of the petitioner would fall under the purview of the Act and
requested to produce all the records of the petitioner; that on 19.1.2003, the
second respondent had taken into custody all 84 people, officials, employees
and distributors of the company; that in the instant case, apart from getting
a gold coin of numismatic value, the customer also gets money by way of
commission for enrolling new customers and in such a situation, the
investments made by the customers cannot be said to have been made for making
quick or easy money; that on such averments, the petitioner has come forward
to file the above Criminal Original petition seeking the relief extracted
supra.
5. So far as the Crl.O.P.No.4617 of 2003 is concerned, the
petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the petition would submit that
the petitioner is a company incorporated in India; that Conybio is in the
business of importing health care products mostly from Malaysia; that the
petitioner has introduced 30 products in Tamil Nadu; that the products are
sold by the petitioner in India through multi level marketing; that the
petitioner has registered several members as distributors and they are paid
commission as an incentive for introducing customers who are interested in
buying the product; that the petitioner offers career to several persons who
are suffering due to unemployment, but the law enforcement agencies in Tamil
Nadu have taken the view that selling products through multi level marketing
violates the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978;
that the scheme has been passed by Parliament; that the sale of products by
multi level marketing cannot be construed as a money circulation scheme; that
the petitioner apprehends that the respondents will harass the petitioner and
its employees by constantly visiting the office of the petitioner; that the
promoters of the petitioner are law abiding citizens; that therefore, until it
is clarified by the Court, the petitioner will not indulge in multi level
marketing of its products in the State of Tamil Nadu. On such averments, the
petitioner has come forward to file the above Criminal Original Petition
seeking the relief extracted supra.
6. In the reply affidavit filed by the the Deputy
Commissioner of Police, Central Crime Branch, Egmore, Chennai in the name of `
counter affidavit’ in Crl.O.P.No.2347 of 2003 he would submit that the
petitioner/companies distribute or sell their product only on the enrolment of
their members and if they enroll more members, they get commission or
incentives, which clearly comes within the definition of Section 2(c) of the
Act, 1978; that the petitioners have falsely induced their members by claiming
that they can earn quick and easy money to the tune of lakhs of rupees by
further inducing to enroll more members and therefore, the character of the
scheme is not based on the product selling, but based on enrollment of
members; that there is no mala fide intention on the part of the respondent in
taking appropriate action in accordance with law against the petitioners as it
squarely falls within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Act; that if the
allegations in the FIR prima facie disclose a cognizable offence, the
respondent is duty bound to take action; that the investigation prima facie
discloses that the petitioners/promoters companies are involved in money
circulation scheme which is banned under the Act and the prayer sought for by
the petitioners is also vague and ambiguous and therefore the petitions
deserve to be dismissed in limine.
7. Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram, learned senior counsel appearing
on behalf of the petitioners would submit that the petitioner companies are
registered ones under the Companies Act; that they are conducting the business
as that of the Amway; that no action has been taken against Amway and they are
openly doing multi level marketing, but the petitioners are being continuously
harassed by the respondents and they do not come within the purview of the
Act; that the Central Minister has also stated that the multi level marketing
does not come within the purview of the Act; that the petitioners are doing
the business in accordance with law and have not violated any law; that as and
when the petitioner’s products are sold, they are paying Commission and
therefore would pray to pass an order that the petitioners are doing the same
business as that of the Amway and hence, the affidavits filed by the
petitioners may be treated as FIR and action may be taken against Amway.
8. The learned senior counsel would further submit that for
the past five years, no one has made any complaint to the police; that without
any reasonable cause and due to mala fide intention, the respondents are
attempting to interfere with the petitioners’ business; that no prima facie
cases were made out against the petitioners; that it is seen from the
materials placed by the learned Government Advocate and according to him, the
initial investigation discloses a prima facie case of cheating, which is
punishable under Section 3 of the Act.
9. The learned senior counsel would also submit that the
petitioners are not doing a multi level marketing business and it is doing
only money circulation scheme and they are giving certificate of gold content
and therefore, there was no question of cheating; that the complaints against
the petitioners were closed as mistake of fact and hence, she seeks direction
to the respondents, their men, agents and subordinates to restrain from
interfering in the business of the petitioners as long as the business is
conducted lawfully and without indulging in multi level marketing.
10. Per contra, Mr.Abudukumar Rajarathinam, learned
Government Advocate on the criminal side would submit that under Section 154
Cr.P. C., where a cognizable offence is made out, it is the duty of the
police officer to register in writing the FIR; that the offences alleged
against the petitioners are punishable under Section 420 IPC; that Section 10
of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes(Banning) Act, 1978, reads:
“All offences punishable under this Act shall be cognizable”
Once it is found that the offence committed is a cognizable offence, it is the
duty of the Police Officer to take action against the petitioners in
accordance with law. Section 2(c) of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation
Schemes(Banning) Act, 1978, reads:
“Money Circulation Scheme” means any scheme, by whatever name called, for the
making of quick or easy money, or for the receipt of any money or valuable
thing as the consideration for a promise to pay money, on any event or
contingency relative or applicable to the enrolment of members into the
scheme, whether or not such money or thing is derived from the entrance money
of the members of such scheme or periodical subscriptions.
In this case also, the scheme involves enrolment of the members and hence it
comes under the Money Circulation Scheme.
11. As per Section 3 of the Act, “no person shall
promote or conduct any prize chit 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.” In these cases, the
programme is based on customer referral system and the programme offers the
customer, who enrols with the company, on payment of a fixed sum, a gold coin
of numismatic value and if the customer refers new customers, the company pays
commission to the said customer and in paragraph 21 of the affidavit, the
petitioners admit the same.
12. The learned Government Advocate would further submit that
a similarly placed company also filed writ petitions in W.P.Nos.2908 and 4144
of 2003 seeking almost the same prayer which was dismissed by this Court on
13.2.2003. In that case also, one who had become a member and one member who
had bought a magnetic bed, falsely induced the complainant that if he
purchased a magnetic bed for Rs.5,990/-, he would in turn become a member and
if he in turn introduced two more members, he would make quick money to the
tune of lakhs of rupees and thereby cheated the complainant and hence for the
abovesaid reason, dismissed the writ petition.
13. The learned Government Advocate would also submit that
investigation is at the crucial stage and if and when they receive the
complaint against Amway, they would take action against them. As there was a
total ban of the above money circulation scheme, the petitioner cannot be
allowed to do the business and the same is punishable under the Act. In such
circumstances, at the stage of investigation, interference by this Court is
not warranted and would pray to dismiss the above criminal original petitions.
14. As far as investigation is concerned, the learned
Government Advocate would undertake that he would impart proper instructions
to the respondent to investigate the same and file a Final Report following
all the procedures contemplated under law. The learned Government Advocate
would also submit that based on the affidavit, if necessary, the respondent
would issue notice to Amway and enquiries would be made. He would further
submit that the prayer sought for is totally vague and this Court need not
issue any direction to the Director General of Police restraining him from
giving instructions to his lower officers and whenever, the complaint
discloses that a cognizable offence is made out, it is the duty of the police
officer to register the complaint under Section 156 Cr.P.C., and take action
against the petitioners in accordan ce with law.
15. In consideration of the facts pleaded, having regard to
the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned senior counsel for
the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate on the Criminal side, it
comes to be known that both the petitioners in Crl.O.P.Nos.2347 and 4617 of
2003 have come forward to file the above petitions respectively praying to
direct the respondents 2 and 3 to withdraw their instructions issued to the
law enforcing agencies and the police in the State to initiate action under
the Act and/or under Section 42 0 IPC and further to direct the respondents,
their men, agents and subordinates to restrain from interfering with the
business of the petitioner as long as the business is conducted lawfully and
without indulging in multi level marketing.
16. For the sake of convenience and for easy reference,
Crl.O.P.No.2347 of 2003 and 4617 of 2003 are hereinafter referred to as the
first and second petitions and the petitioners therein as the first and second
petitioners respectively.
17. The petitioners are different entities, the first
petitioner being the Gold Quest International Private Limited and the second
petitioner being Conybio Healthcare (India) Private Limited, both based at
Chennai and the respondents are the State of Tamil Nadu and the Directors
General of Police, Crime Branch and Economic Offences Wing and the Inspector
General of Police, Economic Offences Wing. So far as the first petition above
is concerned, the petitioner’s contentions are that it is a registered company
under the Indian Companies Act and is a numismatic company dealing with gold
products and are considered the largest distributor of Olympic commemorative
sets of the Sydney Olympics and has 5 lakh customers and its sphere of
activity spreads to eight countries including India and a reputed concern
having entered into agreements with a number of reputed organisations.
18. The first petitioner would describe the operational
sphere of the first petitioner company that if the customer refers new
customers, the company pays commission; that many are benefited by its
interactive customer referral programme and its activities are strictly legal
and transparent, but on an erroneous understanding, based on a complaint, not
by a customer but someone else, the FIR has been belatedly filed under
Sections 420 and 511 IPC which was later referred as ` mistake of fact’; that
the respondent has wrongly concluded that the business activities of the
petitioner would fall under the purview of the Act; that the second
respondent, on 19.1.2003 took into custody 84 people of officials, employees
and distributors of the company; that apart from a gold coin of numismatic
value, the customer also gets money by way of commission by enrolling new
customers and in such a situation, the investments made by the customers
cannot be said to be for making quick money or easy money.
19. Likewise, in the second petition above also, the
petitioner would submit that Conybio is in the business of importing
healthcare products mainly from Malaysia and it has introduced 30 products in
Tamil Nadu and the same is sold by the petitioner in India through multi level
marketing appointing distributors on the basis of commission, thus offering
career to several persons, but the enforcement agencies in Tamil Nadu have
taken a view that selling products through multi level marketing violates the
provisions of the Act; that they are threatening the petitioner and its
employees and therefore it has become incumbent on the part of the Court to
clarify that the petitioner will not indulge in multi level marketing of its
products in the state of Tamil Nadu and would seek for the reliefs extracted
supra.
20. During arguments, the learned senior counsel besides
bringing out the facts and circumstances as extracted herebefore would also
cite a judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in support of the case of the
petitioners reported in (1982) 1 SCC 561 = AIR 1982 SC 949 ( STATE OF WEST
BENGAL AND OTHERS vs. SWAPAN KUMAR GUHA AND OTHERS) wherein the Honourable
Apex Court, while considering the scope of the money circulation scheme, has
held:
“The definition of the expression `money circulation scheme’ contained in
Section 2(c) of the Act does not comprehend within its scope any and every
activity “for the making of quick or easy money”. Two conditions must be
satisfied before a person can be held guilty of an offence under Section 4
read with Sections 3 and 2(c) of the Act. In the first place, it must be
proved that he is promoting or conducting a scheme for the making of quick or
easy money and secondly, the chance or opportunity of making quick or easy
money must be shown to depend upon an event or contingency relative or
applicable to the enrolment of members into that scheme. In other words,
there has to be a community of interest in the happening of such event or
contingency.”
“…. 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 viewpoint of the promoters and also of the
members.”
“…. The position will not be any different, judged from the point of view
of the depositors, even if a part of the transaction is not above-board and is
secretive or clandestine in nature. Such transaction cannot be considered to
be a scheme for making of quick or easy money, though it may offend revenue
laws or any other law. Transactions in black money do not come within the
mischief of the Act….”
“…. Two conditions must be satisfied before a person can be held guilty of
an offence under S.4 read with Ss.3 and 2(c) of the Act. In the first place,
it must be proved that he is promoting or conducting a scheme for the making
of quick or easy money and secondly, the chance or opportunity of making quick
or easy money must be shown to depend upon an event or contingency relative or
applicable to the enrolment of members into the scheme.”
21. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners would also
cite an unreported order of the Bombay High Court dated 10.7.2002 made in
Criminal Writ Petition No.800 of 2002 wherein on account of the failure of the
respondents to pay a sum of Rs.2,500/= in the business transaction, a criminal
case has been filed by the individual making out a case under Sections 406,420
r/w.34 IPC and under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Act and assessing the facts
and circumstances of the case and the manner in which the business was
conducted in that case, the learned single Judge of the Bombay High Court has
arrived at the conclusion to hold that `the terms and conditions printed on
the receipts are binding upon the complainant and thus non-repayment of the
amount by the company would not amount to commission of offence by any one of
the respondents. At the most, it may be said that there is breach of contract
for which the remedy of the petitioner is to go to the civil court…. The
case would also not be covered under the provisions of Prize Chits and Money
Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 as there is no element of circulation
of money for quick or easy money or easy gains to the parties by the said
transactions. There is no wagering or a transaction which is without exchange
of consideration. The method adopted by the company was only a method adopted
for sales promotion as a business strategy for larger sales. Therefore, in my
opinion, the transaction between the complainant and respondents would not be
covered by the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes ( Banning) Act, 1978.
In my opinion, merely because the respondents failed to repay the amount of
Rs.2500/=, it does not mean that the respondents had intention from the
beginning to cheat complainant or to misappropriate his money.’
22. In the first criminal original petition, the petitioner
would seek for a direction to be issued to the respondents 2 and 3 to withdraw
all instructions issued by them to various law enforcing agencies and the
police of various districts in the State to initiate action against the
petitioner for cheating and under the provisions of the Prize Chits and Money
Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act and the second criminal original petition to
direct the respondents from interfering with the business of the petitioner so
long as the business is conducted lawfully and without indulging in multi
level marketing.
23. So far as the prayer in the second petition is concerned,
the petitioner would submit that since the prayer itself is specific to the
effect that so long as the business is conducted lawfully, the respondents
need not have to interfere with and therefore praying to direct the
respondents, their men, agents and subordinates to refrain from interfering.
But the case of the respondents so far as the prayers of both the petitions
are concerned, it is not the question of causing interference while the
petitioners do the business unlawfully but the very business that the
petitioners have introduced and are running and the method and means of
running the business itself is illegal and therefore the classification of
lawful business or unlawful business itself has no place.
24. On the part of the petitioners, the typed set of papers
submitted would only contain publicity or advertisements captioned ` creating
earning opportunities’ or `dreams, vision, business, success’ and in the name
of `starting your own business’ as `Free India Concepts Opportunity’ terms of
high hopes and aspirations such as `no investment, only you have to purchase
any one product, no experience required, everyone can do it, no infrastructure
required to promote, no risks, work at your own convenience part time and full
time venture, sky is the limit, no overheads and inherit y our business’ and
further `it has unimaginable income prospects that helps you to earn
millions’, ` all the effort you need to put in is introducing this concept to
your friends,neighbours and relatives’ and the salient features of their
concepts with alluring terms such as `we introduce an innovative concept where
you have to purchase a product and recommend the products to your friends and
relatives’, `set your own income target. There are no fixed targets for you
to achieve. You have to set your own goals and targets of your income. Your
income depends on number of new people sponsored into your network’, `the
unique income plan designed by the company ensures unlimited income growth
with minimum efforts’, `the unique business plan designed generates immediate
income with which all necessities of your life can be fulfilled’, `the unique
business plan ensures life long income to all its network distributors’ and
that `this business can be inherited to your spouse, children, dependants and
relatives’ ultimately recommending to purchase anyone product of your choice
and setting guidelines for the agents/distributors and offering sales
promotion incentives. Thus page by page one could see only alluring promises
of making not only quick but easy money but also having the hallmark of
canvassing other buyers.
25. Nothing is placed on record regarding the foundation of
the petitioner companies and the aims and objectives of the companies to
achieve and how they are beneficial or serving the ends of the society or the
general public and therefore needless to mention that only to cover up cases
of such nature, Act 43/78 has been legislated by the framers of law revealing
thereby the legislative intent to cover up cases of such nature with schemes
which are not based on any ideal relying on one’s effort, hard work or putting
in the intelligence etc. but on luck or chance of making quick or easy money
by lazy or lethargic means of enrolling members into the scheme only to enrich
the organisers at the cost of the general public which are glaring in the
schemes and there is no wonder the respondents have issued proper directions
to their subordinates to be on the alert and to avoid innocent general public
from falling a prey to the ill-motivated designs or alluring tricks and
tactics adopted by parties like the petitioners by using those who fall a prey
early being used as their canvassing agents for enlisting more number of the
general public to join the scheme ultimately to enrich themselves at the cost
of the innocent public who are sure to be cheated ultimately and since many
such instances have proved to be utter failures in the recent times giving way
for the public to be cheated of their hard-earned life saving monies.
Prevention is better than cure. The preventive and punitive measures taken on
the part of the respondents cannot, under any circumstance, be termed as
either irregular or illegal or infirm or in violation of the norms of law.
The respondents have rightly exercised their jurisdiction conferred by law in
registering such cases wherein such unlawful activities are reported or
brought to the notice of the respondents thereby promptly registering the case
either under the relevant provisions of the IPC such as 420 or under the penal
provisions of the Special Act such as the Prize Chits and Money Circulation
Schemes ( Banning) Act, 1978 and thus they have only acted in adherence to the
requirements of law and no such directions or orders as sought for to be made
in the above petitions need be necessary in the circumstances of the case.
26. So far as the judgments cited on the part of the
petitioners are concerned, in the first judgment by the Honourable Apex Court
it is clearly held that `in the 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 opportunity of making quick or easy money must be
shown to depend upon an event or contingency relative or applicable to the
enrolment of members into that scheme’, which are the ingredients of the
relevant provisions of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning)
Act, which are laid emphasis by the Honourable Apex Court and the Honourable
Apex Court would also hold that the `scheme has necessarily to be judged as a
whole both from the viewpoint of the promoters and also of the members in
order to find out whether it is a scheme for the making of quick or easy money
and any event or contingency relative or applicable to the enrolment of
members into the scheme’. Therefore, it is incumbent on the part of the
respondents to study each and every such scheme floated and exercise their
jurisdiction and proceed against, provided the transaction is not above-board
and is secretive or clandestine in nature and if the transaction is considered
to be a scheme for making quick or easy money.
27. So far as the case in hand is concerned, on a overall
consideration of the facts and circumstances of the scheme floated on the part
of the petitioners, the respondents in their considered view have rightly
arrived at the conclusion to hold that they fall under the purview of Section
420 IPC and under Section 4 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes
(Banning) Act, 1978 and hence they have given positive instructions to the law
enforcing machinery and the police to register the cases wherever such schemes
are floated. Therefore, the actions and prosecutions initiated by the
respondents and their subordinates could only be concluded as within the
permissible limits of their powers to register such cases and not in violation
of any law or rule or norms.
28. From the unreported judgment of the Bombay High Court, it
could only be seen that it is entirely on a different set of facts as
extracted supra and in the facts and circumstances revealed therein, the
learned single Judge of the Bombay High Court has justified the action of the
Magistrate in dismissing a complaint filed by the complainant therein and the
case in hand having different set of facts, the norms or principles evolved
therein cannot be applied to the case in hand. Moreover, since the element of
canvassing new members has not at all been subjected to wide discussion nor
any conclusion arrived at in the said case, this Court finds it difficult to
adopt the proposition laid down therein.
29. Moreover, the cases having been registered, they are at
the investigative stage and therefore this Court is of the firm view that a
thorough investigation by the respective law enforcing agencies and the police
will be the answer and in the interest of the general public, on a overall
consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case put forth and in
application of the legal principles and the law as well, the only conclusion
that could be arrived at by this Court is to decline to cause interference
into the rights of the respondents in initiating such measures against the
petitioners not only registering cases under Section 420 IPC but also under
the relevant provisions of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes
(Banning) Act, 19 78 and hence the following order:
In result, both the above criminal original petitions fail and
they are dismissed.
Consequently, Crl.M.P.Nos.840, 841 and 1603 of 2003 are also
dismissed.
Index: Yes
Internet: Yes
raa/Rao
To
1.The Secretary to
Government, Home Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St. George,
Chennai-9.
2.The Director General of Police,
Crime Branch, Egmore,
Chennai.
3.The Director General of Police,
Economic Offences Wing,
Chennai.
4.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.