S. Ravi Kumar, J.

1. This revision is preferred against the Order in Crl. M.P. No. 349 of 2005 in C.C. No. 6 of 2004 on the file of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, wherein the discharge petition filed by the revision petitioner herein was dismissed.

The brief facts leading to this revision are as follows:

(a) The revision petitioner filed discharge petition contending that on 18.12.2002, Mohammed Raza lodged a complaint stating that on seeing the advertisement in leading Urdu Newspapers, Munisf Daily and Siasat Daily, he was lured by the higher dividend in the name of Halal Munafa offered by the accused's financial establishment, by ` 80,000/- and he was informed by the accused that the deposits made in the accused company are safe and have been guaranteed by the Reserve Bank of India and he received dividend of ` 250/- per month from the accused on the amount of ` 10,000/- for March, 1999. As he failed to pay the dividend from the month of April, 1999, he approached the branch office as well as the corporate office located at Lower Tank Bund, there he found both the offices were locked basing on which, a complaint was registered by the Crime Investigation Department police and took up investigation and investigation revealed that the accused without registering the financial institution with the appropriate authority and without getting permission from the Reserve Bank of India to do business of N.B.F.C. and made the general public to believe that he made registration with the appropriate authority and according to the petitioner, due to some tiring incidents in the city and else where in March, 1999, the investors of the accused company made a belief and demanded to return their premature investments. The accused company could not pay the money of investors as the demand was increasing and the office was ransacked and taking advantage of the same, the police officials were also acting as recovery agents and some other anti social elements were threatening the accused and his family members. In those circumstances, the accused filed a W.P. No. 9502 of 1999 on 27.04.1999 before this Court contending that he is willing to make the payments to his investors and prayed the Court that his assets can make good payments, as such the Court appointed Advocate Receiver to take over the administration of the accused companies namely; Franzaan & Company, Franzaan Enterprises and two other companies. In compliance of the direction of the Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court, the Advocate Receiver took over the administration of the accused companies and also took over all the records, documents and was managing the affairs of the accused company and the Advocate Receiver gave a notice in the news papers on 20-09-1999 to file claims in respect of the accused companies in person or through post. During the said proceedings, the investors' association impleaded in the W.P. No. 9502 of 1999 and also filed claims before the Advocate Receiver. The association also filed W.P. No. 19520 of 1999 before this Court to seize all the assets of the financial company and the said Writ Petition was clubbed with the Writ Petition filed by the accused. Later, the Investors' Association filed L.P.A. No. 220 of 2000 before the Division Bench challenging the orders passed by Hon'ble Single Judge. The Division Bench has passed order disposing the L.P.A. and Writ Petitions with certain directions. The Andhra Pradesh Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999 (herein after referred to as 'the Act 1999') was promulgated and came into effect from 01-11-1999. Whereas, the accused approached this Court and filed the W.P. No. 9502 of 1999 on 27.04.1999 for appointing Advocate Receiver to take over the administration of the accused's financial companies and therefore, it is clear that the accused was not at the helm of affairs during the said period as such it has to be construed that the accused's financial companies were under the