1

Non-Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.423-424 OF 2018

State of Tamil Nadu        ….Appellant

Versus

S. Martin Etc.    …. Respondents

J U D G M E N T  

Uday Umesh Lalit, J.

1. Original  accused  Nos.2  and  3  approached  the  High  Court  of

Judicature at Madras by filing petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. namely

Crl. O.P. No.13106/2013 and 14971/2013 respectively seeking quashing of

Crime  No.304  of  2012  registered  pursuant  to  FIR  304  of  2012  dated

12.03.2012 with Adambakkam Police Station,  Chennai.  Said petitions were

allowed  by  the  High  Court  vide  its  common  judgment  and  order  dated

15.10.2014 which is presently under challenge at the instance of State of

Tamil Nadu in these appeals by special leave.

2

2.   The  aforesaid  FIR  was  registered  pursuant  to  reporting  by  M.

Nataraj, Inspector of Police, Crime, Adambakkam Police Station, Chennai.

The FIR  inter alia  stated that the informant had received information that

several crores of unaccounted money was stashed in the house of accused-1,

Nagarajan pursuant to which a raid was conducted and cash amounting to

Rs.7,20,05,000/- stored in three bags was found.  The FIR further noted that

said  accused  No.1  Nagarajan  had  admitted  that  he  and  his  associates,

namely,  Accused  No.2  Martin  and  Accused  No.3  Murthy  had  illegally

printed lottery tickets of the States of Sikkim, Kerala and Maharashtra and

sold  the  same  without  obtaining  any  permission  and  in  the  process  had

amassed enormous profit and the cash in question represented the same.  Rs.

50 lakhs in cash were also seized from the house of Accused No. 3 Murthy.

A-1  Nagaraj  was  immediately  arrested  and  Crime  No.304/2012  was

registered under  Sections  294(A),  420 and 120(b)  IPC and the case was

forwarded for investigation.

3. During the course of investigation 3625 numbers of lottery tickets of

various  States  were  recovered.   In  his  application  for  anticipatory  bail,

accused No.2 Martin relied upon a document i.e. Agreement of Sale dated

02.03.2012.  According to this unregistered agreement, the wife of accused

No.2 – Martin named Mrs. Leema Rose had agreed to purchase House No.4,

3

Old No.  56,  3rd Main  Road,  Anna Nagar,  Chennai-40 from said  accused

No.3-Murthy and had paid Rs. 7.3 crores by way of advance in cash.  It was

submitted that the seized cash in question represented such amount received

in cash.

4. While  the  matter  was  still  under  investigation,  Crl.O.P.

Nos.13106/2013 and 14971/2013 were filed on 21.05.2013 and 11.06.2013

respectively, praying inter alia quashing of aforesaid Crime No. 304 of 2012.

A common counter affidavit dt. 25.06.2013 refuting all material allegations

was filed by Assistant Commissioner of Police on behalf of State of Tamil

Nadu.  It was submitted,  inter alia   that the unregistered agreement dated

02.03.2012 was on a stamp paper which was issued by the State Government

to the stamp vendor on 09.03.2012 and the same was sold to one Vimla on

13.03.3012.  It was further submitted that the lottery tickets recovered during

investigation  were  sent  to  the  respective  State  Governments  to  check

whether they were genuine and the report  was still  awaited.  The counter

affidavit further submitted that the investigation was still incomplete.

5. The High Court by its judgment and order dated 15.10.2014 allowed

said Crl. O.P. Nos. 13106/2013 and 14971/2013 and quashed Crime No.304

of 2012 in its entirety.  The High Court was of the view that  the present case

4

came within categories 2,3,5 and 7 as laid down by this Court in  State of

Haryana & Others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Others1.  It further observed:

“In this case, there in no element of impersonation or falsely claiming to be authorized to make a false document.

…………

As  far  as  the  present  case  is  concerned,  the  custody  of unaccounted money is not specified as to be an offence and the act of creating ante dated document by allegedly using forged non judicial stamp papers is also not specified as offence under the Code.”

The High Court finally summed up:

“Thus, for the reasons stated above, this court is of the view that  neither  the  case  of  the  prosecution  discloses  any of  the ingredients of the offences charged against the accused nor the accused can be subjected to face the ordeal of trial by reason of improbable  nature  of  prosecution  case,  as  such,  the  FIR  in Crl.No.304/2012 pending on the file of the respondent police is liable to be quashed in entirety against the petitioners herein as well as non petitioners.”

6. This  Court  issued  notice  on  10.07.2015.   Counsel  on  behalf  of

respondents appeared and produced on record certain documents alongwith

their affidavit in reply.  The matter was thereafter taken up for hearing.  We

heard M. Yogesh Kanna, learned Advocate on Record for the State and Mr.

1 1992  Suppl.(1) SCC 335

5

Amarendra  Sharan,  Mr.Mukul  Rohtagi  and  Dr.  A.M.  Singhvi,    learned

Senior Advocates for the respondents-accused.

7. In our view the assessment made by the High Court at a stage when

the  investigation  was  yet  to  be  completed,  is  completely  incorrect  and

uncalled  for.   Presence  of  two  crucial  facts  was  enough  to  let  the

investigation  go on,  namely,  recovery  of  huge amount  of  cash  of  Rs.7.2

crores from the house of one of  the accused and that such recovery was

accepted by the accused.  The explanation given by them about the alleged

transaction of agreement of sale and receipt of cash in pursuance thereof

does not prima facie appear to be correct.  The agreement is stated to have

been entered on 02.03.2012 while the stamp paper in question was issued by

the relevant department on 09.03.2012 to the vendor which was later sold to

lady  named Vimla  on  13.3.2012.   Whether  the  possession  of  huge  cash

amounting to Rs. 7.2 crores can be explained by the accused and whether

such explanation be accepted or not, are all matters which will be gone into

at the relevant stage in the proceedings.  The investigation in any case ought

not to have been set at naught but it ought to have been permitted to be taken

to its logical conclusion.  

8. We are not expressing any opinion on merits or demerits of either the

case of the prosecution or the defence of the accused but we are of the firm

6

opinion that  while  the investigation was still  incomplete,  the High Court

ought not to have interfered in the present case.  Leaving all questions open

to be agitated at appropriate stages in the proceeding, we set aside the view

taken  by the  High Court  and allow these  appeals.   Consequently  Crime

No.304 of 2012 stands restored to its file and the appellant is free to conduct

investigation and take the matter to its logical conclusion.  

..……..…………….J.                                                   (Adarsh Kumar Goel)

..………….……….J. (Uday Umesh Lalit)  

New Delhi March 28, 2018