Judgment :- 1. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The respondent herein / complainant has filed a case in C.C.No.448 of 2001, on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Nagappattinam, against the revision petitioners herein/accused for an offence under Section 409, 418, 467, 468 and 471 of I.P.C., stating that the complainant's father was doing wholesale and retail cooling glass business at Singapore in the name and style of "Abdul Razak Jubar". He had opened N.R.E.S.B.and S.B. account in three banks. The first accused herein is the Bank, wherein the complainant's father had his N.R.E.S.B. and S.B. accounts and the second accused is its Branch Manager in respect of accounts, viz., Indian Overseas Bank, Nagapattinam from Singapore, the account bearing No.9892-N.R.E.S.B and Indian Overseas Bank, Nagapattinam, account No.9909-S.B. As per the account Nos.N.R.E.S.B.9892 is concerned, the account finds place in the ledger being kept by the accused. The complainant as per details as regards the balance in respect of that N.R.E.S.B. account No.9892 which stood in the name of "Abdul Razak Jubar" and as per the advice of the second accused, the complainant had got the legal-heir certificate and he sent a letter on 23.06.1998, enclosing the legal-heir certificate. This has been also done at the instance of the Regional Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Nagapattinam. After receipt of this letter, no information has been furnished till date. 2. Therefore, a complaint has been filed before the District Consumer Forum at Nagapattinam. The case in C.O.P.No.16 of 1999 is pending. The accused had filed counter statement and stated that the N.R.E.S.B. account No.9892 given to the complainant's father Abdul Razak Jubar is wrong and by mistake it was given to him and the real number given to Abdul Razak Jubar was 9909 and the real S.B. account holder of N.R.E.S.B. account holder of 9892 is one Krishnamoorthy. The accused further stated that the complainant had also received back the entire amount in account No.9909, but the main allegation is that the complainant did not receive the amount in N.R.E.S.B. account No.9892. Hence, the above case has been filed. 3. The accused further stated that the complainant had also received back the entire amount in account No.9909, but the main allegation is that the complainant did not receive the amount in N.R.E.S.B. account No.9892. Hence, the above case has been filed. 3. While the case is pending, the accused had filed a Criminal M.P.No.2330 of 2009, stating that the accused are not an individual and the case has been foisted as against the petitioners, which is not maintainable under criminal law, since the dispute pertains to N.R.E.S.B account No.9892, which had been opened by the late Abdul Razak Jubar. The petitioner further stated that even in the sworn statement of complainant, it had been disclosed that the amount alleged to have been lying in N.R.E.S.B. account No.9892 was not given to him, in the sworn statement, it has also been admitted that the amount which has been in account No.9909 was received by him. In fact, the complainant has filed a petition before the District Consumer Forum, Nagapattinam, which was not pressed by the complainant. The petitioner submits that the present manager who had appeared in this case, after assuming charge, in the Nagapattinam Branch, only on 11.06.2007, but he entered appearance, in the above case only on 06.07.2007. Even the respondent had not alleged that he has committed Criminal breach of trust, forgery and other offences as mentioned in the complaint. Therefore, no individual responsibility has been foisted against the accused. The petitioner further stated that the respondent did not produce any document to show that the bank account was opened by his father on 04.08.1980. It was also stated that the complainant's father opened only one account on 04.09.1980 and account number assigned to him is N.R.E.S.B.9909. The accused bank have maintained two separate ledgers, one for ordinary S.B. account and another for N.R.I.S.B. account from 1980 onwards. 4. The petitioner / accused further stated that the account number serial is continuous and is common for both ordinary S.B. account and N.R.E.S.B. account. The previous N.R.E.S.B. account No.9891 was opened prior to the complainant's father on 30.08.1980. The next N.R.E.S.B. account, that of the complainant's father was opened on 04.09.1980. Due to clerical mistake and oversight, the ordinary S.B. account of Krishnamoorthy was assigned to the respondent's father as account No.9892. The error was noticed within a day and the same was rectified. The previous N.R.E.S.B. account No.9891 was opened prior to the complainant's father on 30.08.1980. The next N.R.E.S.B. account, that of the complainant's father was opened on 04.09.1980. Due to clerical mistake and oversight, the ordinary S.B. account of Krishnamoorthy was assigned to the respondent's father as account No.9892. The error was noticed within a day and the same was rectified. The said Krishnamoorthy had also closed his account. Therefore, the N.R.E. account No.9892 had not been opened by the complainant's father. Therefore, the petitioners / accused seek discharge from the criminal proceedings. 5. The respondent / complainant had filed counter statement and resisted the said discharge petition. The respondent stated that his father was doing business at various foreign countries and he had opened N.R.I. account at Indian Overseas Bank, Nagapattinam. His account number is 9892 for money transaction pertaining to his business. The accused had not produced the important ledgers. The complainant further stated that the foreign currency ledgers are alleged to have been destroyed. The accused, wantonly and deliberately did not disclose the complainant's father's account particulars. 6. On considering the averments of both the parties and on hearing the learned counsels on either side, the learned Magistrate had held that the accused had not given a notice about the said mistake and the rectification in the N.R.E.S.B. account No.9892. Further, the learned Magistrate observed that the alleged N.R.E.S.B. account 9892 was opened on 04.09.1980. The learned Magistrate was at a loss to understand that if the account was opened on 04.09.1980, how the interest could have been credited on the same account on 04.09.1980. Therefore, the learned Magistrate had come to a conclusion that there was a prima facie case on the side of the complainant. Hence, the discharge petition was dismissed on 30.11.2009. 7. Aggrieved by the said dismissal order, the accused has filed the above revision. 8. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners had submitted written arguments, which are as follows:- (i) The learned trial judge has committed grave error in dismissing the discharge petition filed by the petitioners by completely ignoring the basic principle of Criminal Jurisprudence that the allegation of commission of offence must be person specific and on the said basis the complaint preferred by the respondent against the petitioner-Bank is unknown to law. In particular, the offences defined under the Indian Penal Code contemplates a person committing the offences. In particular, the offences defined under the Indian Penal Code contemplates a person committing the offences. Nowhere in the entire Indian Penal Code, a legal person which could have no merits like the petitioner-Bank has been contemplated to commit any offence. Especially, in Chapter I under the caption 'introduction', Section 2 of I.P.C. reads as follows:- "2. Punishment of offences committed within India:-Every person shall be liable to punishment under this code and not otherwise for every act or omission contrary to the provisions thereof, which he shall be guilty within India." While the position of law is as crystal clear as stated above, the trial Court ought not to have dismissed the discharge petition filed by the petitioners herein, but ought to have allowed the same. (ii) Factually also, the complaint filed by the respondent herein not even discloses any of the offences he alleges against the petitioner-Bank to have been committed. Further, the complainant has not produced even a shred of paper in the form of document or material to substantiate and sustain the allegations against the petitioner-Bank. Even in his evidence adduced under Section 244 of Cr.P.C. he candidly admits that his father's NRE SB A/c No.9892 had been opened on 04.09.1980 and subsequently, the account number was corrected as N.R.E.S.B. A/c.No.9909 and in respect of the same (NRE SB A/c.No.9909), he received the settlement amount after submitting legal-heir certificate. While so, there is no basis whatsoever for the respondent to allege that the petitioner-Bank committed the offences. Therefore, the dismissal of the discharge petition by the trial Court is both erroneous in law and on the facts available on record. (iii) The learned trial judge has committed grave error on concluding that there was a prima facie case for prosecution and dismissing the petition for discharge filed by the petitioners." 9. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners had cited a judgment in Managing Director, I.C.I.C.I. Bank Ltd., Vs. State of Jharkhand reported in. "9. (iii) The learned trial judge has committed grave error on concluding that there was a prima facie case for prosecution and dismissing the petition for discharge filed by the petitioners." 9. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners had cited a judgment in Managing Director, I.C.I.C.I. Bank Ltd., Vs. State of Jharkhand reported in. "9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, the Court finds that the cognizance of the offence against the petitioner and two others was taken under Section 406 I.P.C. The petitioner who is the accused No.3 in the Complaint Case.153 of 2004 (Annexure1) has been presented as the Managing Director of I.C.I.C.I. Bank Ltd., and has not been named and that the Court further finds that the cognizance of the offence has been taken by the Court below by designation Managing Director and not by name which amount to abuse of process of law. (.....) 10. This petition is allowed. The entire criminal proceeding including the cognizable of the offence vide order impugned dated 31.03.2004 passed in Complaint Case.153 of 2004 by Miss.Kamal Hazarika, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur is quashed. This petition is allowed. Petition allowed." 10. The learned counsel for the respondent / complainant had filed a counter statement which are as follows:- (i) The respondent submits that subsequently the petitioners moved the Hon'ble High Court, Madras for quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.448 of 2001. His Lordship Mr.Justice R.Regupathi dismissed the quash petition in Crl.O.P.No.2984 of 2002 and Crl.M.P.No.1549 of 2002 vide order dated 28.11.2006. In which the operative portion of the order runs as follows:- "In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any merit to quash the proceedings. Hence, the petition deserves dismissal, accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioners may agitate all these grounds before the trial Court." (ii) The respondent further submits that the petitioners in a hurry burry manner filed a discharge petition under Section 245 Cr.P.C. in Crl.M.P.No.2330 of 2009 before the trial Court. The respondent on receipt of the petition has filed a detailed counter with regard to the discharge petition. The learned Magistrate after careful scrutiny dismissed the said discharge petition in Crl.M.P.No.2330 of 2009, dated 30.11.2009. The respondent on receipt of the petition has filed a detailed counter with regard to the discharge petition. The learned Magistrate after careful scrutiny dismissed the said discharge petition in Crl.M.P.No.2330 of 2009, dated 30.11.2009. The learned Magistrate observed that the petitioners is not ready to face the trial and filed this application to discharge themselves from the proceedings, so that the steps taken by the petitioners is misuse the legal process. Since the first petitioner is a Bank, it is admittedly they are custodian of the documents. The transactions of dollars of late Abdul Razak Jubar material document to decide the case on hands. Apart from that the respondent being a layman who is claim as against the organization with a small weapon as a receipt dated 04.09.1980 is N.R.E.S.B. account No.9892, but the petitioners said that the said Abdul Razak Jubar has opened the N.R.B. account No.9892 in his Bank. But they are not speak anything about the said receipt. The petitioners made contentions that when the said Razak Jabar was opened the N.R.E.S.B. account, the bank staff had assigned due inadvertences. Since the bank has maintained two ledgers, one is for Saving Bank Ledger which is customers for resident, rest of ledger for the Non-residential customers viz., N.R.E.S.B. account. But the account numbers has given the account No.9892 without verification of N.R.E.S.B. Account Ledger. So that the mistake was creeped, which was rectified in short time. While so, it is admitted facts that the petitioners who are not given a notice about the said mistake and their rectification in the N.R.E.S.B. account No.9892, incidentally, therefore, the petitioners contention that the mistake was due to inadvertence cannot be accepted in the eyes of law. (iii) Above all, the grounds set-forth in the petition by the petitioners are unacceptable and the very facts comes only during the trial and the petitioners bank are answerable about the account and the deposit made by the account holder, Abdul Razak Jubar. The petitioners contention that the trial Court has not properly considered the discharge petition is nothing, but misuse the legal process. The petitioners contention that the trial Court has not properly considered the discharge petition is nothing, but misuse the legal process. It may be noted that the Hon'ble High Court, Madras earlier dismiss the quash petition filed by the petitioners after careful scrutiny of the petitioners contention and it is enough to the petitioners to agitate all their defence before the trial Court as observed by the Hon'ble High Court, Madras in Crl.O.P.No.2984 of 2002. Therefore, the criminal revision filed by the petitioners well deserve to be dismissed. 11. On verifying the facts and circumstances of the case and the written submissions submitted by the learned counsels on either side, and on perusing the impugned order passed in Crl.M.P.No.2330 of 2009 in C.C.No.448 of 2001, on the file of Judicial Magistrate-I, Nagapattinam, dated 30.11.2009, this Court is of the considered view that the complainant's case has been taken on file on 27.08.2001. The complainant had also deposed evidence on 11.12.2007 and 26.10.2008. Therefore, it is seen that the case is in a partly heard stage. Hence, this Court declined to interfere with the impugned order of the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Nagapattinam. Originally, the case has been filed in the year 2001. Therefore, speedy trial is necessary in this case. As such, this Court directs the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Nagapattinam to dispose the main case in C.C.No.448 of 2001, within a period of two months, on merits. 12. Resultantly, the above revision has been dismissed with the above observations. Consequently, the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.2330 of 2009 in C.C.No.448 of 2001, on the file of Judicial Magistrate-I, Nagapattinam, dated 30.11.2009 is confirmed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Accordingly ordered.