The petitioner, who is A-9, is facing prosecution in C.C.No.4 of 2017 before the Special Court for TNPID Act Cases, Madurai along with nine other accused for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5 of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1997 and Sections 4 and 5(a) of the Prize Chit and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning Act), 1978. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused were running Gayathri Chits (A-1) and Selvam Finance (A-2) and they had collected deposits from about 37 persons to the tune of Rs.1,06,91,632/- and had defaulted in making the payment. Hence, on the complaint of one of the depositors, First Information Report was registered in Crime No.2 of 2016 and after completing the investigation, the police have filed the final report as stated above. While so, the petitioner/A-9 filed Cr.M.P.No.2958 of 2017 in C.C.No.4 of 2017 under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for discharge and also filed a Miscellaneous Application in Cr.M.P.No.3790 of 2017 for raising additional grounds. The Trial Court, by the impugned order dated 08.11.2017, has dismissed the discharge application, aggrieved by which, the petitioner/A-9 is before this Court.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/A-9, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) for the first respondent and the learned counsel for the second respondent.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner/A-9 contended that she became a Partner in Selvam Finance (A-2) after the death of her husband and that she was not actively involved in the affairs of the Financial Establishment. However, the Trial Court has rejected her contention by holding that witnesses Somasundaram (LW-1), Shankara Pandian (LW-2), Gurusamy (LW-3), Padma (LW-4), Jothimani (LW-5) and Anbu Salomi (LW-37) have spoken about the involvement of the petitioner (A-9) in the affairs of the Financial Establishment. In the teeth of such material, it cannot be stated that there are no prima facie materials as against the petitioner/A-9 for framing a charge. Under Section 239 Cr.P.C., an accused can be discharged only if the accusation is groundless. Under Section 240 Cr.P.C., if there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, charge can be framed. Thus, in this case, there are sufficient materials available on record as against the petitioner/A-9 and hence, the petitioner/A-9 cannot be completely discharged from the prosecution. That apart, disputed questions of fact as to whether the petitioner/A-9 was a sleeping partner or an active partner cannot be gone into at this stage.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner/A-9 submitted that in the charge sheet, Gayathri Chits (A-1) and Selvam Finance (A-2) have been shown as being represented by all its partners, namely A-3 to A-10, which is in violation of Section 305 Cr.P.C., and, therefore, the prosecution should be quashed.

5. In the opinion of this Court, violation of the provisions of Section 305 Cr.P.C., cannot entail quashment of the charges as it is purely procedural in nature. Section 305 Cr.P.C., reads as follows :

"305. Procedure when corporation or registered society is an accused.-

(1) In this section, "corporation" means an incorporated company or other body corporate, and includes a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (21 of 1860).

(2) Where a corporation is the accused person or one of the accused persons in an inquiry or trial, it may appoint a representative for the purpose of the inquiry or trial and such appointment need not be under the seal of the corporation.

(3) Where a representative of a corporation appears, any requirement of this Code that anything shall be done in the presence of the accused or shall be read or stated or explained to the accused, shall be construed as a requirement that that thing shall be done in the presence of the representative or read or stated or expl