1. The petitioners 1 to 5 herein have been arraigned as Accused Nos. 1 to 5 in C.C.No.559 of 2007 on the file of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. Consequent to the dismissal of their petition filed under Section 239 Cr.P.C, namely Crl.M.P.No.1519 of 2009 seeking an order of discharge from the said criminal case, the petitioners have approached this Court challenging the correctness and legality of the said order by invoking the revisional powers of this Court under Section 397 r/w. 401 Cr.P.C.

2. Without there being any specific complaint made by a de facto complainant, the SPE/CBI/EOW/Chennai, registered a case on "source information" in R.C.6/E/2005-CBI/Chennai and submitted a final report on the file of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai alleging that the petitioners herein committed offences punishable under Sections 120-B r/w. Sec. 409, 420, 467, 467 r/w. 471 I.P.C and substantive offences thereof, probably meaning the offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 467, 467 r/w. 471 I.P.C. The said charge sheet was dated 31.01.2007. The learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai took it on file as C.C.No.559 of 2007 for the above said offences alleged in the final report. On appearance of the petitioners herein/accused, they not only denied the allegations against them found in the final report, but also filed a petition under Section 239 Cr.P.C which was taken on file by the learned Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai as Crl.M.P.No.1519 of 2009 in C.C.No.559 of 2007. After enquiry, the learned Additional Metropolitan Magistrate passed the impugned order dated 12.03.2010, partly allowing the petition and discharging the petitioners herein for the offence under Section 409 I.P.C alone and dismissing the said petition in respect of the offences under Section 120-B r/w. Sec. 420, 467, 467 r/w. 471 I.P.C. The said order is impugned so far as the dismissal of the petition seeking discharge regarding the offence under Section 120-B r/w. Sec.420, 467, 467 r/w. 471 I.P.C and the substantive offences thereof.

3. The arguments advanced by Mr.R.Rajarathinam, learned counsel for the petitioners and by Mr.N.Chandrasekaran, learned Special Public Prosecutor of CBI Cases, representing the respondent were heard. The grounds of revision and other documents filed in this case and also the records summoned from the trial Court were perused by this Court.

4. The gist of the allegation made against the petitioners leading to the institution of the criminal case by the CBI is as follows:

(i) The first petitioner herein was initially promoted in the name of M/s.T.T.G Machinery Manufacturing Company in the year 1987 and it underwent a change of name in 1992 as M/s.T.T.G.Industries Limited. It was engaged in manufacturing of Wind Electric Generators in collaboration with a German company. During the year 1994 - 1995, the first petitioner approached the Chennai office of the Industrial Finance Corporation of India, shortly called as IFCI, for the sanction of a term loan of Rs.11.65 crores for setting up of a "Wind Farm" with 2.5 MW capacity near Kethanoor, Palladam Taluk and for expanding its capacity of manufacturing Wind Electric Generators at its plant at Ayanambakkam, Chennai. IFCI agreed to lend financial assistance on condition that the loan amount should be secured by way of first charge on all the movable and immovable assets of M/s.T.T.G Industries Ltd., both present and future. It was also agreed that the possession of such movable and immovable assets of the first petitioner would be treated as properties entrusted to it by IFCI. Out of the agreed amount of loan, at various points of time, a total amount of Rs.11 crores was released to the first petitioner herein by way of cheques. However, the loan in respect of the balance amount of Rs.65 lakhs was cancelled. The first petitioner executed a deed of hypothecation date