The Petitioner has focused the instant Criminal Revision Petition before this Court as against the order dated 28.05.2015 in Cr.M.P.No.1115 of 2013 in C.C.No.16 of 2012 passed by the Learned Special Judge, Special Court under TNPID Act cases, Coimbatore.

2. The Learned trial Court, while passing the impugned order in Cr.M.P.No.1115 of 2013 in C.C.No.16 of 2012 dated 28.05.2015 in Cr.No.2 of 2012 (filed by the Petitioner/A4 under Section 227 Cr.P.C., praying for Discharge) at paragraph 8 inter-alia had observed that “... Canvassing persons are also responsible for the affairs of the Company of Firm. Hence, considering the materials on record and available evidences, it is not a fit case to discharge the Accused” and resultantly, dismissed the Petition.

3. Challenging the dismissal order dated 28.05.2015 in Cr.M.P.No.1115 of 2013 in C.C.No.16 of 2012 passed by the trial Court, the Petitioner/A4 has preferred the present Criminal Revision Petition before this Court contending that the trial Court should have seen that the Petitioner/A4 was not in-charge of day-today administration of the Company, as he was to collect only the deposits, on the instructions of the Management.

4. According to the Learned counsel for the Petitioner, the trial Court should have seen that the Petitioner/A4 had only explained the business of the Company and collected the deposits, forwarded the same to the head office and handed over the birds to the depositors.

5. The Learned counsel for the Petitioner takes a stand that subsequently the Petitioner was not deputed to deal with the administration matter of day-today affairs and he was not delegated with any powers of management and he was only a paid servant and drew a salary of Rs.24,000/- per month. As such, he cannot be fastened with any act of criminal offence. It is also represented that the Petitioner is noway connected with the administration of the Company attracted under Section 5 of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1997.

6. The Learned counsel for the Petitioner takes an emphatic plea that the case of the Respondent is that the Petitioner was arrayed as A4 in C.C.No.16 of 2012 and he was involved in all the Management's day-today affairs of the Financial Establishment by canvassing the general public to deposit, to collect deposit money in the name of A1 and for entering into an agreement between A1 and the depositors, supplying feed to the Emu birds, attending complaints regarding deposits. Therefore, these acts were noway connected with the management or the Directors and it is only a clerical work turned out by a salaried employee.

7. The learned counsel for the Petitioner takes a plea that the Respondent had not produced any piece of document to establish that the Petitioner/A4 was in-charge of day-today administration of the Company. Also that, it is the submission of the Learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Respondent/Complainant admits that the Petitioner maintained proper accounts in his own handwriting from the amount collected from the general public and this would show that the Petitioner had properly maintained accounts and he had not taken any amount or maintained false records.

8. The Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the trial Court had wrongly held that it is well known to the Petitioner that the 'Returns' announced by the Company cannot be paid to the 'Depositors'. When once the Petitioner is not a part of the administration and not a legally responsible person, then, he cannot determine whether the returns can be paid or cannot be paid.

9. The Learned counsel for the Petitioner proceeds to contend that the Petitioner is only a 'Branch In-charge' and there are many number of branches but cases were not registered against other Branch Managers and therefore, the act of the Respondent is a motivated and an unfair one, they includes collecting the deposits from the depositors, executing agreement between A1