The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of establishing prima facie evidence under Section 5 of the TNPID Act, and the importance of trial to examine oral and documentary evidence to determine the nature of transactions and the involvement of the accused.

1. The Revision Petitioners/Accused have projected the instant Criminal Revision Petition as against the order dated 14.12.2007 in Cr. M.P. No. 2611 of 2006 passed by the Learned Special Judge under the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1997.

2. The Learned Special Judge under the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1997, Chennai, while passing the orders in Cr. M.P. No. 2611 of 2006 dated 14.12.2007 has among other things observed that “... on a perusal of the entire material available in this case produced by the respondent Police, there is a prima facie case and sufficient ground for further proceedings against the Accused for the alleged offence under Section 5 of the TNPID Act, etc.,” and resultantly, dismissed the petition.

3. According to the Learned counsel for the petitioners/A.2 to A.6, the case of the prosecution is that the First Accused is a Financial Establishment and the Second Accused is the Proprietor of the said Financial Establishment and the Fifth Accused is the wife of the Second Accused. Further, the petitioners/accused and other Accused are the Brother, Brother’s wife and Son-in-Law of the Second Accused.

4. The Learned counsel for the petitioners/accused urges before this Court that the Petitioners have canvassed deposits from the Depositors (public) for the Financial Establishment viz., “Lakshmi Traders and Finance” by promissing to pay a higher interest and further allegation is that by the act of canvassing, they have made deposits in the First Accused/Establishment, which amounts to the commission of the offences alleged.

5. The stand of the Petitioners is that the major offence levelled against them is that as per Section 5 of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1997, the default in repayment of deposits and interests honouring the commitment is an offence and for making out a prima facie case under the TNPID Act, there must be a Financial Establishment and there was a collection of deposits and default in making payment of principal and interest and the person responsible in regard to the management of the affairs of the Financial Establishment are liable for prosecution.

6. Advancing his arguments, the Learned counsel for the petitioners takes a plea that the charge levelled against the Petitioners is that they have canvassed deposits to the Financial Establishment (arrayed as Accused) and when there is no allegation or averment or material to show that the petitioners/accused are the Administrative authorities or who are involved in the management of the affairs of the Financial Establishment and then, in Law the offence under Section 5 of the Act is not attracted.

7. That apart, it is the contention of the Learned counsel for the petitioners that the materials collected during investigation by the prosecution go to show that the First Accused/Financial Establishment is a Licence Holder for sale of pesticides and fertilisers.

8. Continuing further, it is submitted on the side of the petitioners that as per the registered document, it is only a proprietary concern and that the petitioners have not either acted as co-sharers or as persons who actually involved in the Financial Establishment. Also, it is not a partnership firm even as per the Investigation Report.

9. The further case of the complainant is that the Second Accused raised loans from all the beneficiaries and all the documents filed in support of such financial transaction of loans point out that the Second Accused received money on promissory note for his agricultural expenses and not even a single document has been relied on or put against the petitioners that they signed any of the promissory notes or any other documents relating to the deposits between the depositors or the other accused. Moreover, the petitioners have not executed any pronote or any valid document for Fixed Deposits to