BENGALURU: After a heartbreaking financial loss, it is a frustrating wait for thousands of depositors of Sree Kanva Souhadra Cooperative Credit Limited at the BMTC complex in Shanti Nagar. As they brave the biting morning cold and rain, and sleep on platforms of the bus depot after arriving from towns and villages across Karnataka, they hold on to a slim hope that they will get back at least some of their hard-earned money.
Right from 3am, they join the line, fearful of leaving their spot in the serpentine queue. They form part of the 22,000 victims of the nearly Rs 650-crore scam perpetrated by the Bengauru-headquartered company, which has 45 branches across Karnataka. The revenue department has put its 80 staffers on duty to manage the issue here and at the other centre at Sir M Visvesvaraiah Towers.
A spot visit revealed many senior citizens, physically challenged people and pregnant women waiting in two queues -- one on the ground floor to collect a token given only between 9.30am and 10.30am, and another one to collect an application form on the second floor, which is open throughout the day. With no toilets near the passageway where they queue up, they are forced to plead to use restrooms at offices here to relieve themselves.
The depositors were angry and emotional. “I agree I’m an educated fool. The desire to double my money got the better of me,” said an individual from Chitradurga, requesting anonymity. Their deposits range from Rs 33,000 to Rs 6.75 crore, with many having pumped money into separate deposits of multiple family members since 2005. They had a few documents as proof of their deposits. The revenue department’s initiative began on November 2 and will end on December 1.
V Gopalakrishnan Reddy, general secretary of Sree Kanva Souhadra Depositors’ Welfare Association, told TNIE, “People have invested in fixed deposits and recurring deposits with very high interest rates, and Suvarna Nidhi (which promised doubling of money every 66 months). Since September 2019, when the public learnt they had been duped, nearly 200 senior citizens have passed away, fighting to get their money back. I have also lost lakhs of rupees. I formed this association so that we all stick together and fight for our money. We have 2,000 members right now.”
Reddy, who has retired, comes here daily to guide those waiting in the queue. “The whole thing should have been done online. An individual has 15 bonds of family members, and many documents are beng demanded for each deposit, forcing people to spend a lot on photocopies alone,” Reddy said.
A government office staffer here was furious. “There has been a complete invasion of our premises since a few weeks. The lifts are always full and everyone wants to use our toilets. The revenue department should have organised this in a choultry or big government office,” she said.
THOSE ACCUSED OF CHEATING DEPOSITORS CAN’T SEEK BAIL
Bengaluru: Those accused of cheating depositors cannot file a petition for anticipatory or regular bail, but can file an appeal under Section 16 of the Karnataka Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishments (KPIDFE) Act, the Karnataka HC said. “The petition under Section 438 or 439 of CrPC is not maintainable when offences under KPIDFE Act are incorporated, and the only remedy available is to file an appeal under Section 16 of the KPIDFE Act.
Accordingly, the petitions are dismissed,” said Justice Rajendra Badamikar. The court passed the order while dismissing the petition filed by Shreesha Sasithota Prabhakaran, seeking bail in a case registered by Shankarapura Police Station in Bengaluru, under the provisions of IPC, KPIDFE Act and Un-Regulated Deposit Schemes Act. The complainant and her family members invested `17.50 crore on purchase of shares through Sunness Capital India Pvt Ltd, in which the accused Prabhakaran is also the director. After investing, Sunness Pvt Ltd neither issued any shares nor repaid the money. It was also alleged that the petitioner and other accused diverted funds for personal use. Hence, the petitioner was arrested. The petitioner first approached sessions court for bail, which was rejected, after which he approached the high court for bail.