JUDGMENT Per S. SARDAR ZACKRIA HUSSAIN, J. The appellants are A7 and A8 in C.C.No.31 of 2001 on the file of the Special Court under TNPID Act, Chennai. The appeal is directed against the dismissal of the discharge petition in Crl.M.P.No.612 of 2002 filed by these appellants, as per order dated 10.2.2005. 2. One of the de facto complainants filed the complaint on 29.2.2000, which was registered in Crime No.1 of 2000 on the file of Economic Offence Wing, Coimbatore District, Coimbatore under Sections 120B and 420 I.P.C. and Sections 3 to 5 of Prize Chit Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 and Section 5 of Protection of Interests of Depositors Act, 1997 against the accused. Subsequently, 125 complaints, which are available in the trial Court records, also were received. 3. As per the case of prosecution, A1 and A2 are Firms represented by Managing Partner A4 C.Sumathi. In the final report, it is stated that A3 is the Assistant Professor in Kongunadu Arts and Science College, Coimbatore, and A4 Sumathy is his wife. A5 and A6 are parents of A3. A7 Kandasamy is A3’s father-in-law and A8 Kavitha is his sister-in-law. It is also stated that on 6.5.1994, A3 registered the Financial Institution, viz., A1 Firm with A4 to A8 as its partners and since then A3 was managing the A1 institution with the assistance of A3 as the Managing Partner and A5 to A8 as partners. Similarly, A3 registered another Financial Institution, viz., A2 Firm on 13.2.1997 with A4 as the Managing Partner and A5 and A6 as partners for which also A3 was managing the affairs of the firm without his being a partner on record with the help of A4, A5 and A6 and both the firms were run at Door No.66A and B, Mettupalayam Road, Gavundenpalayam, Coimbatore. The accused accepted deposits for fixed periods for interest from general public and after maturity they failed to repay the deposits and also periodical interest for such deposits. The accused accepted deposits for fixed periods for interest from general public and after maturity they failed to repay the deposits and also periodical interest for such deposits. It is also stated in the final report that A3 to A8 on or prior to 5.3.1999, committed criminal conspiracy and default in repayment of deposits to the depositors, punishable under Section 5 of Tamil Nadu Protection of Interest of Depositors Act, 1997 and criminal breach of trust punishable under Section 406 I.P.C. and after investigation, the charge-sheet was filed on 18.7.2001 against all the accused which was taken on file in C.C.No.31 of 2001. 4. Thereafter, the revision petitioners, viz., A7 and A8 filed Criminal M.P.No.612 of 2002 on the file of the Special Court under TNPID Act, Chennai, under Section 227 Cr.P.C. to discharge the petitioners/A7 and A8 in C.C.No.31 of 2001, in which, as per the notes papers of the trial Court records, it appears, a memo to send the documents to Forensic Lab has been filed on 18.9.2002, and the same has been rejected on 30.9.2002. Against the order dated 30.9.2002 the revision petitioners/A7 and A8 filed Crl.O.P.No.25387 of 2002 before this Court, which, as per order dated 17.12.2002 was allowed. Thereafter, the form V was compared along with the signatures obtained from A7 and A8 and the Handwriting Expert has opined asper report dated 28.3.2003 that the person who wrote the red enclosed signatures stamped and marked A1 to A4 did not write the red enclosed signatures similarly stamped and marked B1 and D1 to D3 and further stated that the person who wrote the red enclosed signatures stamped and marked A5 to A14 did not write the red enclosed signatures similarly stamped and marked B2 and D4 to D6. After enquiry, the petition Crl.M.P.No.612 of 2002 was dismissed as per order dated 10.2.2005, which is now challenged in this appeal. 5. Heard Mr.S.Ashok Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, Mr.A.N.Thambidurai, learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) for the State/first respondent and Mr.V.Bharathidasan appearing for second respondent. 6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants/A7 and A8 mainly argued by referring the opinion of the Handwriting Expert that the signatures in Form V are not that of A7 and A8 and therefore, there is no truth in the case of prosecution that they are partners in the A1 and A2 Firm. 6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants/A7 and A8 mainly argued by referring the opinion of the Handwriting Expert that the signatures in Form V are not that of A7 and A8 and therefore, there is no truth in the case of prosecution that they are partners in the A1 and A2 Firm. It is further submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that excepting Form V, no other documents to evidence that A7 and A8 along with co-accused being the partners of A1 and A2 collected various deposits from the depositors and subsequently, cheated and the alleged signatures said to be the signatures of A7 and A8 in Form V, are not the signatures of A7 and A8 as per the report of the Handwriting Expert. Therefore, according to the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revision petitioners/A7 and A8, since no prima facie case is made out against A7 and A8, and there are no sufficient materials to frame charges against them, the revision petitioners/A7 and A8 have to be discharged from the case. The learned Senior Counsel further argued that Form V was submitted on 10.12.1999 containing the particulars of date of joining as partners and date of leaving from A1 Firm, viz., A7 Kandasamy and A8 Kavitha joined as partners of A1 Firm on 1.4.1996 and they left A1 Firm from 1.4.1999 and therefore, the signatures in the said documents could have been forged. He relied on the following decisions: (1) Madhavrao v.Sambhajirao reported in AIR 1988 SC 709 : 1988 SCC (Crl.) 234, (2) State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 : 1992 SCC (Crl.) 426, (3) Punjab National Bank v. Surendra Prasad Sinha reported in AIR 1992 SC 1815 : 1993 Supp. He relied on the following decisions: (1) Madhavrao v.Sambhajirao reported in AIR 1988 SC 709 : 1988 SCC (Crl.) 234, (2) State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 : 1992 SCC (Crl.) 426, (3) Punjab National Bank v. Surendra Prasad Sinha reported in AIR 1992 SC 1815 : 1993 Supp. (1) SCC 499, (4) State of Haryana v. Brij Lal Mittal and others reported in J.T. 1988(3) S.C. 584, (5) K.P.G.Nair v. Jindal Menthol India Ltd., reported in 2000(6) SCALE 578 , (6) Alpic Finance Ltd. v. P.Sadasivan reoprted in AIR 2001 SC 1226 : 2001 SCC (Crl.) 565, (7) S.N.Palanitkar v. State of Bihar reported in AIR 2001 SC 2960 : 2002 SCC (Crl.) 129, (8) M.Krishnan v. Vijay Singh reported in AIR 2001 SC 3014 : 2002 SCC (Crl.) 19: (2002) M.L.J. (Crl.) 134, (9) Kunstocom electronics (I) Pvt. Ltd. v. Gilt Pack Ltd., reported in 2002 SCC (Crl.) 336: (2002) M.L.J. (Crl.) 518, (10) Katta Sujatha v. Fertilizers & Chemicals Travencore Ltd., reported in 2002 (7) SCC 655 , (11) Ajay Mitra v. State of M.P. reported in 2003 SCC (Crl.) 703, (12) Monaben Ketanbhai Shah v. State of Gujarat reported in 2004 (7) SCC 15, (13) Central Bureau of Investigation v. Akhilesh Singh reported in AIR 2005 SC 268 , 7. Learned Government Advocate submitted that inasmuch as A7 and A8 are the partners of A1 and A2 Firm along with A3 to A6 and that they have also collected deposits from various depositors and not returned the deposits after maturity, prima facie case is made out in respect of the offences to frame charges. 8. Learned counsel for the second respondent argued that A7 and A8 are also the partners of A1 and A2 Firm, which is clear from Form A, available on record at page No.211 of the trial Court records, in which it is clearly mentioned that the revision petitioners/A7 and A8 joined as partners on 1.4.1996 and left the firm on 1.4.1999 and inasmuch as both the dates have been mentioned, according to the learned counsel for the second respondent, it is very clear that A7 and A8 were partners of A1 and A2 Firm from 1.4.1996 to 1.4.1999. The learned counsel further submitted that inasmuch as, the Form V has been produced by A7 and A8 along with the discharge petition Crl.M.P.No.612 of 2002, the said document cannot be considered, in view of the fact roving and fishing enquiries are not permissible at the stage of framing of charges and the accused/A7 and A8 have also no right to produce any material at the stage of framing of charges and the material produced by the prosecution alone is to be considered. As regards the opinion of the Handwriting Expert, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the second respondent that it is a weak piece of evidence and therefore, much reliance cannot be placed on the said report and only during trial, entire facts will come to light. Further, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the second respondent that 23 witnesses have stated that they made deposits to A1 and A2 through A7 and A8, which deposits have not been repaid on maturity. 9. The learned counsel for the second respondent relied on the following decisions: (1) Dhanasekaran.K.v. State reported in (2003) M.L.J. (Crl.) 217: 2003(1) CTC 223 , in which this Court held that evidence of Expert Opinion is corroborated by either clear direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence, it is not safe to rely on such evidence. (2) Sekar, N. v. Superintendent of Police reported in (2000) M.L.J. (Crl.) 63: 2000 (1) CTC 662 , in which this Court held thus: "Framing of charges. Essential requirement. Trial Court should come to conclusion that prosecution has shown prima facie case against accused. Prosecution must produce evidence before Court which is capable of being converted into legal evidence later on after charges are framed. Court should refuse to frame charges if evidence adduced before them would not be sufficient to convict accused if such evidence is left unrebutted and unchallenged by way of cross-examination. Court need not shift and weigh materials placed before framing charges. It is enough if prosecution has shown seeds in form of incriminating material which has got potential to develop into full fledged tree during trial." (3) State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi reported in 2005(1) CTC 134 in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court held thus: "At the stage of framing of charge roving and fishing enquiries are impermissible. It is enough if prosecution has shown seeds in form of incriminating material which has got potential to develop into full fledged tree during trial." (3) State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi reported in 2005(1) CTC 134 in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court held thus: "At the stage of framing of charge roving and fishing enquiries are impermissible. Expression "hearing the submission of the accused" cannot mean opportunity to file material to be granted to accused. At stage of framing of charge, accused has no right to produce any material and material produced by prosecution alone is to be considered." (4) State Anti-Corruption Bureau v. P.Suryaprakasam reported in 1999 SCC (Crl.) 373, in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court held thus: "At the time of framing of a charge, what the trial Court is required to, and can consider are only the police report referred to under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and the documents sent with it. The only right the accused has at that stage is of being heard and nothing beyond that. Of course, at that stage the accused may be examined but that is a prerogative of the Court only." 10. No doubt as per the direction issued by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.25387 of 2002, the signatures of A7 and A8 were compared by the Handwriting Expert, who gave his opinion that the signatures in Form V are not the signatures of A7 and A8, but such opinion cannot be taken as conclusive. It is also not clear from the reports of Handwriting Expert as to what are the documents compared by the Handwriting Expert. Form V was submitted with details of partners in the Firm A1 and A2 and also containing signatures of A7 and A8 which are disputed. Therefore, naturally the Form V could have been submitted only by Managing Partner A4 informing that A7 and A8 are also partners as per reconstructed partnership firm. A7 and A8 in the discharge petition Crl.M.P.No.612 of 2002 have stated that the signatures allegedly said to have been put by A7 and A8, have been forged by someone by including their names as partners of A1 Firm without their knowledge in Form V. It is not known as to how, A7 and A8 are able to get such information and how they have produced Form V in the discharge petition Crl. M.P. No.612 of 2002. M.P. No.612 of 2002. Since Form V has been produced by A7 and A8 in the discharge petition, that cannot be looked into at the time of framing of charges. From the above, it is clear that the petitioners/A7 and A8 have filed the petition Crl.M.P.No.612 of 2002 is only to delay and protract the proceedings. Even otherwise, asper the case of the prosecution, all the accused, viz., A3 to A8 collected various deposits from the depositors and they failed to return back the deposit amount on maturity and also failed to pay periodical interest which made the depositors to prefer the said complaints. It appears 23 depositors have also given statements before the Investigation Officer about the deposits made to A1 and A2 Firm through A7 and A8 and these facts will come to light only during trial. Asper the records, there is prima facie case against these petitioners/A7 and A8 to frame charges. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the second respondent herein that Form A contains all the details relating to partners of Firm A1 and A2 including the names of A7 and A8, as to when they became partners and when they left the said firms. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court inasmuch as the Form V was produced by A7 and A8, much reliance cannot be placed on the said document at the stage of framing of charges for which purpose, the case is pending and it is settled that at the stage of framing of charges roving and fishing enquiries are impermissible. Therefore, the trial Court considering all these aspects into consideration properly, rightly dismissed the discharge petition Crl.M.P.No.612 of 2002 and such order does not call for any interference. 11. In the result, this appeal is dismissed. Inasmuch as one of the complaints was preferred on 29.2.2000 which was taken on file in C.C.No.31 of 2001, the Special Judge under TNPID Act, Chennai, is directed to dispose the case by September, 2006.