The court emphasized that the determination of the petitioner's involvement could only be made after the trial and that prima facie evidence was sufficient to proceed with the case.

JUDGMENT :

Prayer : This criminal revision case is filed under Sections 397 r/w. 401 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records pertaining to the order dated 29.01.2021 made in Crl.M.P.No.3562 of 2018 passed by the learned Special Judge for TNPID Act cases, Madurai District and to set aside the same.

1. This petition has been filed to set aside the order passed in Crl.M.P.No. 3562 of 2018 dated 29.01.2021, on the file of the learned Special Judge for TNPID Act Cases, Madurai.

2. The case was registered against the petitioner in Crime No.6 of 2010 under Sections 406, 420, 120(b) of IPC r/w. Section 5 of TNPID Act and the same was taken on file as C.C.No.11 of 2013 and the same is pending before the Special Court for TNPID Act Cases, Madurai. The petitioner has filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.3562 of 2018 to discharge him from the charges. That petition was dismissed by the Special Court. Against the same, the petitioner preferred this revision.

3. On the side of the petitioner, it is stated that the petitioner was mentioned only as A5 in the case. The petitioner is not a partner in the A1's company. The petitioner is not administrator of the company. The name of the petitioner does not found place in the FIR. The petitioner did not canvass for the deposit. The petitioner has not received any amount from the public. Only because some victims have stated that the petitioner was present at that time, the petitioner was roped into the case. Even canvassing for the deposit is not an offence and prayed the petition to be allowed.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would rely upon the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Prasannadevi V. State of Tamil Nadu reported in CDJ 2009 MHC 3490, wherein it is stated as follows:

“12. The fact remains that the petitioner was not a partner of the partnership firm charged in this case under Section 5 of the TNPID Act. The only allegation levelled by the witnesses examined on the side of the prosecuting agency is that the petitioner canvassed for deposits for the financial institution. To invoke the penal provision under Section 5 of the TNPID Act, one should shoulder the responsibility of managing the affairs of the financial firm or company. I find that the provision under Section 5 of the TNPID Act has been drafted very carefully. A person who merely manages the affairs of a firm or a company viz., Clerks, Accountants, Office Assistants, who are just paid servants would not be responsible for the management in the sense that they are not answerable to the claim made against the financial firm. In other words, a person, who simply manages the affairs of a firm, cannot be said to have taken the responsibility of answering the allegation of mis-management of the affairs of the firm. The Clerks, Accountants and Office Assistants come under the said category. They have been given a role to manage the affairs of the partnership firm, but they are not responsible for the mismanagement of the firm when the same is under challenge by a third party. All the persons who manage the affairs of the financial institution need not necessarily be responsible for the management of the affairs of the institution. What is required under Section 5 of the TNPID Act is that the person charged should have been responsible for the management of the institution. The persons who simple manages the affairs of the financial institution as paid servant fall out the ambit and scope of the aforesaid provision of law.”

5. On the side of the respondent, it is stated that A5 is the administrator of the company. A3 is the wife of A2. A4 is the son-in-law of A2. A5 is another son-in-law of A2. A1 is the Global Capital Trading Services company. 19 persons were cheated by the petitioners and others. The default amount is Rs.2,89,60,990/-. The petitioner and others canvassed the depositors in Theni at Pethanachi Kalyana Mandapam. The petitioner is one of the administrators of the company. The petitioners and others are filing various