Court Rejects Criminal Revisions Against Conviction

Madras High Court refused to interfere with the conviction of Tamil Nadu Muslim Munnetra Kazhagam (TMMK) members accused of illegally receiving foreign contributions without registration.
The accused had filed Criminal Revision Petitions challenging the conviction and sentence imposed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, which was upheld by the Additional City Civil Judge.
Justice P. Velmurugan ruled that a Revisional Court has very limited jurisdiction under Section 376 CrPC and cannot interfere unless there is “perversity or illegality.”

Revisional Court’s Limited Jurisdiction

The court reiterated that: “It is a settled proposition of law that this Court being a Revisional Court, cannot interfere with the judgment of the Courts below, unless perversity or illegality exist. The jurisdiction of the Revisional Court under Section 376 is minimal and it can only examine the legality, proprietary and correctness of the order passed by the Courts below.”

The prosecution proved that the accused violated the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 1976 (FCRA) by:
- Accepting foreign contributions without registering the association with the Indian Government.
- Failing to obtain prior permission from the Government of India and the Reserve Bank of India (RBI).
- Operating an unauthorized bank account under the name Coimbatore Muslim Relief Fund (CMRF), which received ₹1,54,88,508.07 from foreign sources.
Despite an inquiry by the Tamil Nadu Government, the accused continued receiving foreign funds without compliance.

The accused, including State President, General Secretary, and State Deputy President, were convicted under:
- Section 120-B IPC (criminal conspiracy).
- Sections 4(1)(e), 6, 11, 22, and 23 of FCRA.
Sentence:
- 1 year of rigorous imprisonment for each accused.
- Fine of ₹10,000 each.
The Appellate Court upheld the conviction and later challenged in the High Court, which refused to intervene.

Prosecution’s case was backed by strong oral and documentary evidence.
The Trial Court and Appellate Court properly examined the evidence before convicting the accused.
The Revisional Court should not interfere unless decisions are grossly erroneous, arbitrary, or lack evidence.
The arguments by the defense were not applicable, while the prosecution’s legal references were relevant.
The court dismissed all Criminal Revisions, affirming the conviction.

Petitioners’ Lawyers: Senior Advocates P.V. Balasubramanian, Abudu Kumar Rajaratnam, J. Sivanandaraj, Advocates Rahul M. Shankhar, S.S. Ashok Kumar, Akhil Ahmed Akbar Ali.
Respondents’ Lawyer: Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) K. Sinivasan.