1. This revisions petitions were filed under section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. by the Petitioners/Accused (A2 and A3) against the dismissal of their discharge petitions filed under section 239 of Cr.P.C by the Learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai in Crl.M.P.Nos.821 & 822 of 2014 in C.C.No.9400 of 2010 by the common order dated 15.2.2017. The revision petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.392 of 2007 is accused No.3 namely Abdul Razzak and accused No.2 namely Murugan is the revision petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.393 of 2007.

2. The brief case of the revision petitioners are as follows:

The case of the Revision Petitioners is that one Mohammed Hayath, accused No.1, working as the Project Co-ordinator in a computer software company by name “soft Solution” owned by the defecto complainant namely Senthil Kumar, committed an offence of hacking of hard disc owned by the defecto complainant and used the source code for his personal gains. Based on the complaint, a case has been registered by the respondent police against A1 in Crime No.1 of 2005, under sec. 65 of the Information Technology Act r/w 408 of IPC. Subsequently the respondent police laid the charge sheet as against A1 for an offence under section 65 of IT Act r/w 408 and 120 (B) of IPC, as against the Revision petitioners (A2 & A3) for an offences under section 120 (B) of IPC r/w 65 and 66 of Information Technolgy Act, 2000.

3. The allegations in the final report is that the revision petitioners also colluded with A1 thereby and they committed an offences under the sections mentioned supra. Now charge sheet is pending before the learned trial Court in C.C.No.9400 of 2010. Trial is yet to commence. The Revision Petitioners had filed discharge petitions before the trial Court in Crl.M.P.Nos.822/2014 and 821/2014 and both applications were dismissed by a common order dated 15.02.2017.

4. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioners contends that the 1st Revision Petitioner was employed as General Manager and the 2nd Revision Petitioner was employed as Special Officer of Thiruppattur Town Co-Operative Bank were falsely implicated by the respondent police without any prima facie materials.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the co-operative department as already ordered an enquiry under sec.81 of Co-operative Societies Act and by its conclusion, it has absolved the Revision Petitioners from any criminal liabilities and they have not been subjected to any disciplinary proceedings also. Though they initiated surcharge proceedings that was also dropped. Hence the action of the prosecution is against the decision of the department and the materials collected from the witnesses no way connect the petitioners with accused No.1.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the prosecution has not sought permission to prosecute the Revision Petitioners which is mandatory under section 197of Cr.P.C and the quantum of amount awarded as contract to the A1 by the Revision Petitioners is Rs.1,36,000/- which is more or less similar to the amount allotted in the previous year and hence there is no room or reason for any scandal as alleged in the final report.

7. The Revision Petitioners contends that the Reserve Bank of India issued institutional notification to keep all the final accounts of the every financial year in computerized firm and the bank is not having facility of the computer and they have to avail outsource agencies by way of giving work orders. Accordingly for the year 2003-2004 the order was allotted to the defacto complainant as per the tender norms. For the year 2004-2005 tender was called for and the tender was allotted to the A-1 as his bid was lowest. Besides, another part of the work was allotted to M/s Online a different contractor. Thus everything was fully transparent in nature and according to accepted norms. The specific case of the defacto complainant is that A1 used source code developed by him for his personal gains in this