Judgment :- The petitioners in Crl.R.C.Nos.860 of 2007 and 1127 of 2007 are the accused Nos.7 and 8 respectively in C.C.No.72 of 2001 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vellore. Both are petitioners filed petition before the learned Magistrate under section 239 of Cr.P.C., to discharge them form the above said proceedings, but the said Petitions were dismissed by the learned Magistrate. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have preferred the above Criminal Revision Cases. 2. The case of the prosecution is that accused Nos.1 and 2 Achairram and Berraram were running a Jewellery Shop at Gudiyatham Town and they collected a sum of Rs.90,000/- from the defacto complainant namely one G. Ramesh Kumar and by promising to return the above said amount along with the interest, executed a pro-note on his favour. Similarly, they have also collected huge sums of money from several other persons and in total they have collected a sum of Rs.87,69,877/- from 226 person. These amounts were collected during the period from 1995 to 2000. During June 2000, all of a sudden, the accused Nos.1 and 2 sold all their properties and they have escaped to Rajasthan State. 1. A case was registered by the District Crime Branch, Subsequently the case was also transferred from District Crime Branch to the Economic Offence Wing-II, Vellore on 28. 2009 and further investigation was done by the Investigating Officer, E.O.W. II, Vellore. According to the Investigating Officer, it was ascertained that the accused Nos.1 and 2 being relatives among themselves conspired with A3 to AB, being friends and in order to cheat the Depositors, accused No.1 fraudulently transferred the properties in the name of accused Nos.4 to 8, by giving power of attorney to accused No.3 and thereby preventing the distribution of the properties to the Depositors, who were the affected parties. 2. The first accused sold the properties situated in Documents No.17/294, Annaji Rao Street, Sandapettai, Gudiyatham and executed a Sale Deed in favour of the 7th accused, who is the Revision Petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.860 of 2007 and the Sale Deed was registered on 09.09.1999 at the office of the Sub-Registrar, Gudiyatham. 2. The first accused sold the properties situated in Documents No.17/294, Annaji Rao Street, Sandapettai, Gudiyatham and executed a Sale Deed in favour of the 7th accused, who is the Revision Petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.860 of 2007 and the Sale Deed was registered on 09.09.1999 at the office of the Sub-Registrar, Gudiyatham. Likewise, the accused No.1 executed Sale Deed regarding his property namely house and shops situated at Rajasthan State in favour of the accused No.8, who is the Revision Petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.1127 of 2007 and the Sale Deed was registered on 24.06.2000 at the office of the Sub-Registrar at Sojat, Pali District, Rajasthan State. 3. Mr. v. Madhavan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.860 of 2007 and Mr. E. Kannadasan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.1127 of 2007 submitted that the properties purchased by the petitioners were originally purchased by the first accused even prior to the date of occurrence i.e. during 1995-2000. Both the properties were purchased by the first accused in the year 1983, one of the properties in fact was purchased by the first accused jointly with one Narayanan Lal, both the properties were purchased by these petitioners prior to the Registration of the First Information Report and absolutely these petitioners have no knowledge about the amounts collected from various persons by accused Nos.1 and 2. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.860 of 2007 submitted that the petitioner was working in the Indian Coffee Board, he was working in North India for several Years, submitted his voluntary retirement, and he came back to his native place. After voluntary retirement the petitioner decided to purchase a house property with his hard earned money. Accordingly, he purchased the property only after verifying the Encumbrance Certificate for the period of seventeen years, which disclose that the property was purchased by the first accused. The petitioner purchased the property for the valuable consideration of Rs.4, 15,000/-. 5. Similarly, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.1127 of 2007 submitted that the petitioner is a resident of Rajasthan and when he came to know that the property is about to be sold, he had no knowledge about the transactions of the first accused in Tamil Nadu State, decided to purchase the property after verifying the Encumbrance Certificate and he purchased the property for a valuable consideration. 6. 6. It was further submitted by the respective learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that there is absolutely no material in the case of the prosecution to show that the petitioners have any knowledge about the criminal intention of the first accused and there is no material to show that these petitioners also conspired with the first accused. 7. Per contra, Mr. I. Paul Nobel Devakumar, learned Government Advocate (crl.side) submitted that the petitioners purchased the properties which belonged to the first accused only after knowing the fact the accused Nos.1 and 2 have cheated huge sums of money from the depositors at Gudiyatham and also knowing that the assets of the accused Nos.1 and 2 will be attached at any time, these petitioners have also assisted the first accused in order to dispose of the properties. The learned Government Advocate (crl.side) accordingly submitted that the prosecution has made out a primafacie case against the petitioners herein. 8. This Court considered the submissions made by the counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record. 9. It is an admitted fact that the properties were purchased by the first accused much prior to the period of occurrence viz, 1995 -2000, during which period, the amounts were collected by the first and second accused from several person. It is also not in dispute that both the properties were purchase by the first accused in the 1983 and from 1983, the property was in the possession of the first accused. It is also to be noted that one of the properties was sold on 09.09.1999 and the other property was sold on 24.06.2000 and the First Information Report in this case was registered on 7. 2000. Though it is possible to say that the first accused expecting that a case may be registered against him and the property may be attached, he could have taken steps to dispose of the properties but, it could not be stated that the purchasers of those properties had known about the said fact. The prosecution is also unable to point out any material in support of the Final Report filed by the prosecution to come to a conclusion that the accused have knowledge about the collection of huge sums of money from various persons by the first accused by way of deposits and about the cheating by the first accused. 10. The prosecution is also unable to point out any material in support of the Final Report filed by the prosecution to come to a conclusion that the accused have knowledge about the collection of huge sums of money from various persons by the first accused by way of deposits and about the cheating by the first accused. 10. In the absence of any such material, it is not possible for this Court to say that the petitioners have conspired with accused Nos.1 and 2. Even as per the F.I.R., the first accused was absconding from his place from the night of 17.06.2000, however, one of the properties was sold even prior to that i.e. on 09.09.1999 and the other property was sold prior to that i.e., on 09.09.1999 and the other property was sold on 26. 2000. Therefore, it is not possible to say that the person who was the resident of Rajesthan to know about the happenings in Tamil Nadu. Any how, the prosecution is unable to point out any material primafacie to show that these petitioners have knowledge about the activities of the first accused. 11. Since no primafacie case is made out as against these petitioners, the orders passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vellore, in C.M.P.Nos.892 of 2004 and 900 of 2003 in C.C.No. 72 of 2001 are set aside, by holding that the charge against the petitioners herein groundless and they are discharged. Both the above Criminal Revision Cases are allowed.