Judgment :- (Both Criminal Revisions filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Criminal Procedure Code against the common order dated 29.11.2001 and made in Crl.M.P.Nos.73 and 524 of 2001 in C.C.No.1 of 1999 on the file of the Special Court under TNPID Act, Chennai.) Common Order Both Criminal Revision Cases are filed by A6 and A3 to A5 in C.C.No.1 of 1999 on the file of the Special Court under TNPID Act, Chennai, against the dismissal of the discharge petitions Crl.M.P.Nos.73 and 524 of 2001 respectively, as per common order dated 29.11.2001. 2. Heard Mr.R.Krishnamurthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners in both revisions and Mr.A.N.Thambidurai, learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the State/respondent in both revisions. 3. Mr.R.Krishnamurthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners in both revisions submitted that during the pendency of the revisions, this Court as per judgment dated 25.4.2000 in C.A.No.1020 of 1999 directed that the premises owned by the accused which was attached, are to be handed over to the accused as per the memorandum of understanding entered between the Depositors' Association for running the business in the premises bearing Door No.73, Usman Road, T.Nagar, Chennai. It is also ordered that the parties can come to the Court for any appropriate direction in case of any development. Further direction also issued in Crl.M.P.No.12240 of 2003 in C.A.No.1020 of 1999 as per order dated 21.1.2004 permitting the sale of immovable and movable properties old No.73, New No.79, Usman Road, T.Nagar, Chennai-17 and items 2 and 3 of the schedule of the agreement dated 20.11.2003 and a flat at C.I.T. Nagar, D.No.43, Ist Main Road, C.I.T. Nagar, Chennai-35 for Rs.12 Crores as per the terms of agreement of sale dated 15.5.2003 to one Sivaa Traders or its nominees for which the attachment was raised with condition to pay a sum of Rs.5,50,00,000/- to the Depositors' Association in terms of the agreement dated 20.11.2003. He further submits that most of the deposits made by the depositors have been repaid. 4. The Inspector of Police IX Team Central Crime Brach, Egmore, Chennai-8 filed a counter dated 15.2.2006 that most of the depositors, viz., 9205 members were repaid 42% of their deposits and that Balu Jewellers Depositors' Welfare Association resorted to enter into compound the offences before the Competent Authority. 5. 4. The Inspector of Police IX Team Central Crime Brach, Egmore, Chennai-8 filed a counter dated 15.2.2006 that most of the depositors, viz., 9205 members were repaid 42% of their deposits and that Balu Jewellers Depositors' Welfare Association resorted to enter into compound the offences before the Competent Authority. 5. Section 5A(1) of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1997 reads thus:- "An offence punishable under section 5 may, before the institution of the prosecution, be compounded by the Competent authority or after the institution of the prosecution, be compounded by the Competent authority with the permission of the Special Court, on payment of the entire amount due to the depositors with or without interest." Section 320(6) of Criminal Procedure Code reads thus:- "A High Court or Court of Session acting in the exercise of its powers of revision under Section 401 may allow any person to compound any offence which such person is competent to compound under this section." 6. Therefore considering the facts and circumstances of the case and inasmuch as it is stated that 9205 depositors have been paid 42% of their deposits and that the depositors seek to enter into compounding the offences before the Competent authority, necessary permission is to be granted. 7. In the result, both Criminal Revision Cases are dismissed. The Competent authority is at liberty to move necessary application within one month from this date for compounding the offences in accordance with the provisions of the TNPID Act with the permission of the Special Court under TNPID Act. Consequently, connected petitions Crl.M.P.Nos.1761 and 1762 of 2002 are also dismissed.