The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for prima facie evidence to frame charges and the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 read with 401 of Cr.P.C.

This criminal revision petition has been filed to set aside the order dated 21.07.2016 in Crl.M.P.No.1255 of 2016 in C.C.No.3186 of 2007 passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore @ Chennai and discharge the petitioner.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:

A1 and A2 are private limited companies promoted by A3 and A4 and these companies were engaged in the manufacture of self-closing values and design pressure regulators for LPG Cylinders. These items were manufactured to supply to three Oil Companies namely IOC, BCL & HPCL based on their purchase orders. The companies availed the facility from the Indian Overseas Bank viz., Supply Bills Purchase facility to the tune of Rs.65 lakhs each for A1 and A2 companies, for which, A1 and A2 had to produce the bills raised on the oil companies supported with lorry receipts and inspection certificate of Bureau of India Standard and a covering letter. Further, during the period from April 2003 to October 2003, out of 93 bills discounted for M/s.Intech Engineering (A1) Company and only 35 Bills were realised and payments for remaining 58 Bills were not received by the bank and out of 59 bills purchased for M/s.Spec Engineering (A2) company, only 16 bills were realised and remaining re bill were unpaid and thus, the total amount due for both the companies was Rs.2.43 crores. Entire primary and collateral securities offered by the companies were sold and an amount of Rs.224 lakhs were recovered and according to the prosecution, the total outstanding of A1 and A2 was Rs.280 lakhs including interest. It is the further case of the prosecution that A1 and A2 companies had negotiated and arrived at one time settlement as per which, the entire dues were paid. Therefore, a case has been registered against A1 to A4 for the offences under Sections 120(B), 420 and 471 of I.P.C. During the pendency of the matter, all the four accused filed quash petition in Crl.O.P.No.6128 of 2009 and this Court was pleased to quash the proceedings by order dated 22.07.2010 on the ground that the entire dues payable to Indian Overseas Bank was settled by applying the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nikhil Merchant Vs. CBI & Another reported in (2008) 3 SCC (Cri.) 858. However, the respondent challenged the said order before the Apex Court in S.L.P.Crl.No.259 of 2011, which was later converted into C.A.No.161 of 2016 and the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to set aside the order of this Court and allowed the criminal appeal, giving liberty to the accused to urge available legal grounds praying for discharge before the trial Court. Therefore, A4 has filed the discharge application stating that she was a house wife and hence, she cannot be vicariously liable for the offences. However, after hearing both sides, the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate passed order dated 21.07.2016, dismissing the discharge petition filed by the petitioner. Against which, the present criminal revision petition has been filed.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is no specific overt act attributed to this petitioner/A4 and as such, the charge against the petitioner/A4 is groundless. There is no overt act specifically attributed to the petitioner/A4 except for the fact that she is the Director of A1 company and Managing Director of A2 company. When the company is an accused, the vicarious liability of the Managing Director or Director will arise only when there is any provision fixing such vicarious liability on the managing Director or Director. The offences have been committed by the companies and the criminal role of the petitioner/A4 is not explained by the prosecution and there is no documents for showing that this petitioner/A4 has actually participated in the criminal activities. He would further submit that the name of the petitioner/A4 is not found place in the first information report and she has been implicated only