Revisional courts must consider all relevant materials in discharge applications and cannot rely on omnibus findings.

ORDER

The petitioner is the 10^th accused in C.C.No.30/2017 on the file of the Special Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thrissur, which arises from Crime No.1937 of 2011 registered by the Thrissur Town East Police Station against the accused persons alleging them to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 120 B , 406 and 420 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 4 , 5 and 6 of the Price Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978.

2. The gist of the prosecution case is that, the 4^th accused is Managing Director of the accused 1 to 3 Companies, the accused 5 to 13 are the Directors of the above companies and accused 14 to 16 are its Promotional Shareholders. The 1^st accused Company was incorporated on

12.07.2007. The 2^nd accused company was incorporated on 01.01.2010 as ‘Nano Power Corporation Ltd’. But, its name was changed to ‘Nano Excel Corporation Ltd’ on 26.02.2010. The 3^rd accused Company was incorporated on 01.11.2012 for promoting the businesses of the accused 1 and 2 Companies. The accused persons had influenced people through advertisement and deceived them to invest money by promising to pay high profits. However, the accused persons had failed to pay the profits and thus cheated the depositors.

3. The petitioner asserts that the materials produced by the Investigating Agency substantiate that he was not the Director of the Company. Even though the petitioner has filed Crl.M.C to quash the entire proceedings against him, by Annexure B order, this Court disposed of the Crl.M.C by permitting the petitioner to move an application for discharge before the Trial Court, in absentia of the petitioner. Pursuant to Annexure B order, the petitioner had filed an application for discharge before the Trial Court.

However, the Trial Court dismissed the said application. The petitioner challenged the said order by filing Crl.R.P.No.116/2022 before the Revisional Court. But, by Annexure - D order, the revision petition was dismissed confirming the dismissal order passed by the Trial Court. Annexure - D order passed by the Revisional Court is erroneous and improper.

4. In a case of an identical nature, by Annexure - E order, this Court set aside the the order passed by the Revisional Court and directed the Revisional Court to reconsider the revision petition after considering all the relevant aspects in the application for discharge. The petitioner is entitled to a similar relief in the present case also.

5. Heard; the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

6. The materials on record substantiate that, by Annexure - B order, this Court permitted the petitioner to file an application for discharge in the above crime.

However, the said application was dismissed and the petitioner challenged the said order in a revision petition. Nonetheless, by Annexure - D order, the Revisional Court had also dismissed the revision petition confirming the order passed by the Trial Court. In a case of a similar nature, in connection with the very same transaction, the petitioner had filed Crl.M.C.No.8643 of 2024 before this Court. By Annnexure E order, this Court allowed the Crl.M.C, in view of the fact that there was only a omnibus finding in the impugned order that the petitioner was the Director during the relevant period. Furthermore, the Revisional Court had failed to make any reference to the other materials on record, and particularly the fact that the bank account of the company was opened one month after the petitioner’s resignation.

7. On an over all consideration of the facts and the materials on record, especially the findings in Annexure B order passed by this Court, I am of the definite view that the petitioner is entitled to t