G. Satapathy, J.

1. This criminal revision is directed against the impugned order dated 29.08.2024 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ganjam at Berhampur in G.R. Case No. 225 of 2012(B) refusing to discharge the petitioner from the criminal case for commission of offences punishable U/Ss.120(B)/420/ 468/471/34 of IPC r/w. Sections 4/5/6 of Prize Chits & Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978 (in short, “the Act”).

2. Briefly stated, the allegations against the petitioner are that the petitioner and others by entering into conspiracy allured the informant/complainant to deposit/invest money in Right Max Techno Trade Company on the assurance of giving high returns @ Rs.1600/- per month on deposit of Rs.10,000/- up to 33 months and accordingly, received investment/deposit from the complainant/informant and other gullible investors, who invested certain amounts in the company which issued some bonds in their favour, but when the complainant/informant and other investors approached the company personnel at Berhampur Office for return of their money, no money was returned to them. On this fact, the informant and villagers approached the Police, but in vain and thereafter, one G. Chakrapani Reddy filed a complaint in the Court against the employees of the company and such complaint being registered as 1CC No. 25 of 2012 was sent to the Police U/S. 156(3) of the CrPC which eventually led to registration of Chamakhandi P.S. Case No. 75 of 2012 resulting in commencement of investigation in this case which ultimately ended in submission of charge sheet against the petitioner and others for commission of offence punishable U/Ss. 120(B)/ 420/ 468/471/34 of IPC r/w. Sections 4/5/6 of the Act.

3. On the basis of materials collected in the course of investigation, cognizance of offences was taken and out of charge sheeted accused persons, four accused persons facing the trial in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ganjam at Berhampur in G.R. Case No. 225 of 2012 got acquitted in this case on conclusion of trial. Since the petitioner and five others did not appear, the case against them was separated and split up by the learned trial Court vide an order dated 11.05.2018 passed in the original case which gives rise to split up case in G.R. Case No.225 of 2012(B), but subsequently the petitioner and four others appeared in the split up case, however, the petitioner filed a discharge petition to discharge him from this criminal case for commission of offences punishable U/Ss. 120(B)/ 420/ 468/ 471/ 34 of IPC r/w. Sections 4/5/6 of the Act mainly on two grounds that their names do not find place in the FIR with no overt act being attributed to them and acquittal of co-accused person in the original trial. The learned trial Court, however, by the impugned order rejected such discharge petition of the petitioner giving rise to the present revision.

4. In the course of hearing of the revision, Mr. Ramani. K., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that co-accused standing on similar footing has already been acquitted by the learned trial Court in G.R. Case No. 225 of 2012 and the name of the petitioner being conspicuously absent in the FIR and no overt act having been attributed against the petitioner, the petitioner should have been discharged from this case, however, the learned trial Court erroneously applied the law and rejected the discharge petition of the petitioner which can be rectified by allowing this revision. Accordingly, Mr. Ramani. K., learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the revision by setting aside the impugned order and discharging the petitioner from the criminal case.

4.1. On the other hand, Mr. R.B. Mishra, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, however, strongly opposes such prayer of the petitioner by inter alia contending that not only the learned trial Court has passed the order rightly refusing to discharge the petitioner, but also there is a prima facie case against the petitioner fo