Southern States - Tamil Nadu-Chennai   

One-year RI for woman upheld

By Our Staff Reporter

CHENNAI DEC. 29. The Madras High Court has upheld a one-year RI awarded to a woman, who, along with her husband (since deceased), impersonated an advocate and induced several persons to part with varying sums.

The couple — Jai Sudarshan alias J. Raman and S. Vasanthi alias Srimathi alias Srinidhi alias Kamala alias Suganya — inserted advertisements about their `law firm' in yellow pages, and collected thousands of rupees from their clients for `depositing in court'.

They promised the clients that the `deposit' would be returned once the litigation was over, and collected an additional sum towards fee.

Though the woman was introduced as `senior counsel', no material was available to support the claim.

The Central Crime Branch police investigated the case. As the first accused, Sudarshan alias Raman, was reported dead, the charges against him got abated.

The Principal Sessions Court found the second accused guilty of offences under Sections 419 and 420 IPC and sentenced her to suffer RI for one year in each of three counts in each Section. A fine of Rs. 2,000 under each count was also imposed.

"There is no valid ground for interference with the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant, and the appeal deserved to be dismissed", observed Justice P. Sathasivam.

He cited a relevant Supreme Court observation, that "anybody who responds to inducement... and gives money or other article and does not get the desired result is a victim of the fraudulent representation".

In the present case, though it was stated that the second accused woman was a qualified advocate, no material had been placed either before the trial court or before the High Court, the Judge stated. "This kind of fraud, especially in the legal profession, is very dangerous and if it is allowed to continue, there is a possibility of others adopting the same style to collect huge amount from innocent litigants. Considering the fraudulent act played by the second accused along with her husband, I am of the view that a deterrent punishment has to be imposed. I do not find any valid ground for interference", Mr. Justice Sathasivam observed.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Southern States

News: Front Page | National | Southern States | Other States | International | Opinion | Business | Sport | Miscellaneous |
Advts: Classifieds | Employment | Obituary |

Stories in this Section

• Poor medical facilities at CMBT
• More Tambaram-Beach BG EMU services from Jan.
• One-year RI for woman upheld
• 'Public expectations increase pressure on judges'
• Insurance firm asked to pay interest on compensation
• Unauthorised shops removed
• Robber gang from A.P. held

Copyright © 2002, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu