Discharge is warranted when there is no documentary evidence to establish the operation of a financial establishment, and the accused is entitled to parity if a co-accused with a similar role has already been discharged.

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

The Court made the following:

ORDER

The instant Criminal Revision Case under Sections 397 & 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short „Cr.P.C‟) has been filed by the Petitioners / Accused Nos.2 to 4 seeking to set aside the Order dated 06.11.2019 in Crl.M.P.No.272 of 2019 in C.C.No.8 of 2018 on the file of the Court of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Srikakulam.

2. Heard Sri P.Rajkumar, learned counsel for the Petitioners / Accused Nos.2 to 4, Sri Tota Tejeswara Rao, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State.

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that the order of the Trial Court is erroneous and contrary to law. It is contended that there is no documentary proof to show that the Petitioners are running a Chit business and as such, the ingredients of Section 5 of the A.P. Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999 , (herein after referred as “the Act”) do not attract against the Petitioners. Learned counsel further submits that the prosecution has failed to produce any credible or documentary evidence connecting the petitioner with the alleged offences, and the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C and other materials do not disclose any incriminating material. It is brought to the notice of this Court that this Court vide Order dated 08.04.2026 in Crl.R.C.No.126 of 2020 discharged Accused No.1 in the present case for the offence under Section 5 of the A.P. Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999 and the Petitioners herein are also on the same footing.

4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the order of the Trial Court is legal and proper and does not warrant any interference. It is contended that the Trial Court correctly dismissed the discharge petition as there is prima facie material against the Petitioners. Learned counsel submits that the statements of witnesses and other material show the involvement of the Petitioners in running the chit business and collecting money from the public. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition.

5. A perusal of the material available on record would show that the prosecution mainly relies upon the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. alleging that the Petitioners were associated with the chit transactions. However, except such statements, no documentary material has been placed before the Court to prima facie establish that the Petitioners were running a “Financial Establishment” within the meaning of the Act or that they had accepted deposits from the public so as to attract the offence under Section 5 of the Act.

6. It is also relevant to note that this Court, in Crl.R.C.No.126 of 2020, by order dated 08.04.2026, discharged Accused No.1 for the offence under Section 5 of the Act on the ground that there was no material to show his involvement in running the financial establishment. The role attributed to the present Petitioners is not distinguishable from that of Accused No.1. Therefore, the Petitioners are also entitled to the benefit of parity.

7. Though at the stage of framing of charge or considering discharge petition, the Court is not expected to conduct a roving enquiry into the merits of the matter, there must be sufficient material giving rise to grave suspicion against the Accused regarding commission of the alleged offences. In the absence of any documentary evidence showing that the Petitioners were operating a financial establishment or conducting chit busine