Involvement in day-to-day business activities of a financial establishment can make a person liable under Section 5 of the TNPID Act.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 read with 401 Cr.P.C, pleased to set aside the order in Crl.M.P.No.651 of 2021 in C.C.No.6 of 2020 on the file of the Learned Special Judge, Special Court under TNPID Act, Coimbatore dated 27.09.2021.)

This Criminal Revision Case is filed aggrieved by the order of the learned Special Judge, Special Court under TNPID Act, Coimbatore dated 27.09.2021 in Crl.M.P.No.651 of 2021 in C.C.No.6 of 2020, in an by which the prayer of the petitioner/5th accused to discharge her was dismissed.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is only the wife of the 3rd accused, who is a Director in one of the Financial Establishment and Proprietor of another Financial Establishment. Except for being his wife, the petitioner is not involved in the offence. He would further submit that in the original complaint given by the victims, her name was not specifically mentioned. However, only at the time of filing of charge sheet, erroneously her name has been implicated. He would also submit that even the statement of the listed witnesses would state that she worked as an Accountant and that she canvassed for the deposit. Therefore, in any event she is not in the management of the affairs of the Financial Establishment and therefore, she cannot be prosecuted.

3. I have considered the said submission and perused the materials records of this case. I am unable to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner for the following reasons. The order impugned in this Revision was passed on 27.09.2021 and it is now represented by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) that as on today, P.W.1 to P.W.20 have already been examined and the matter is now posted for examination of the Investigation Officer on 16.08.2022. Therefore, this is one last minute attempt by the accused persons to somehow protract the proceedings.

4. Even otherwise, this Court in Crl.R.C.No.735 of 2022 dated 04.08.2022, had considered similar submissions and after considering the relevant judgments of the Hon-ble Supreme Court of India had taken a view that the affairs of the Financial Establishments shall mean the business affairs of the Financial Establishment and therefore, if any person, who is present in the establishment and actually canvasses for the deposits, involves himself/herself in any day to day business of the company, would still be liable to be proceeded under Section 5 of the TNPID Act and it is useful to quote the paragraph 11 to 15 of the said Judgment, which is hereunder:-

...

11. In this background, first, the petitioner cannot be discharged because, per-se there are allegations against him in respect of running the financial establishment and therefore, there is material to proceed as far as the offenses under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC.

12. Now, coming to Section 5 of TNPID Act, it is useful to extract the same as follows:-

“5. Default in repayment of deposits and interest honouring the commitment.- Notwithstanding anything contained in Chapter II, where any Financial Establishment defaults the return of the deposit or defaults the payment of interest on the deposit, or fails to return in any kind, or fails to render service for which the deposit has been made, every person responsible for the management of the affairs of the Financial Establishment shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years and with fine which may extend to one lakh of rupees and such Financial Establishment is also liable for a fine which may extend to one lakh of rupees.“

[Emphasis supplied]

13. The main plank of filing of the discharge application is that there is no material to show that the petitioner is responsible for the management of the affairs of the financial establishment and the aforementioned decisions of this Court is relied upon. The above j