Judgment :- 1. Heard both sides. Records summoned from the trial court were also perused. 2. The 4th accused before the trial court in C.C.No.5 of 2008 is the revision petitioner in the Criminal Revision Case. The present Criminal Revision Case has been filed against the order of the trial court dated 30.08.2011 dismissing the petition filed by the revision petitioner under section 239 Cr.P.C claiming discharge from the said case on the following two grounds:- (i) The accused and the depositors had agreed for a scheme by which the amount due to the depositors could be paid by selling the properties of the financial establishment attached under section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act 1977 [herein after referred to as TNPID Act] and also by attaching and selling other properties which, according to the revision petitioner, are in the possession of one Premkumar, an Ex.M.L.A. (ii) The revision petitioner/A4 was not responsible for the conduct of the affairs of the Financial Establishment and hence, the petitioner should not be prosecuted for the offence under section 5 of TNPID Act allegedly committed by the financial establishment, namely Amudham Investments, Dindigul. 3. The learned trial Judge, namely the Special Judge under the TNPID Act, Madurai, dismissed the said petition by the impugned order dated 30.08.2011 and framed charges for offence under section 420 IPC and 406 r/w 120-B IPC and also section 5 of the TNPID Act. Aggrieved by and challenging the order dismissing the discharge petition, the petitioner has approached this court by way of the present Criminal Revision Case. 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner in the Criminal Revision Case, in his arguments, simply repeated and reiterated the points raised before the trial court which were ultimately rejected by the trial court holding the same to be not sufficient for warranting an order of discharge. However, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner tried to project one more ground as a ground on which the order of discharge was sought for. However, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner tried to project one more ground as a ground on which the order of discharge was sought for. According to the said submission, totally three cases were registered against the financial establishment and its partners in respect of the deposits made by different sets of depositors and all the cases should have been clubbed into one as they are sought to be prosecuted for the offence punishable under section 5 of TNPID Act also besides IPC offences. This court is of the considered view that the remedy available to the petitioner is to seek for the clubbing of all the cases and the trial of all the offences is one and the same trial and that can never be a ground for seeking discharge. 5. So far as the other two grounds raised before the trial court, which according to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner were rejected on untenable grounds, are concerned, this court is not in a position to accept the above said arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. Section 5-A of the TNPID Act deals with the compounding of the offence punishable under section 5. It provides for the compounding of the offence before the institution of prosecution in which case it can be done by the competent authority without the permission of the court and for the compounding of the offence after the institution of the prosecution, in which case the permission of the court is to be obtained. In either case, the competent authority can compound the offence not on the expectation or assurance of payment of the entire amount due to the depositors with or without interest, but on actual payment of the entire amount due to the depositors with or without interest. 6. When an offence under the Act is compounded, then no further proceedings for the offence under section 5 of TNPID Act can be continued and the same will result in the discharge of the accused. 6. When an offence under the Act is compounded, then no further proceedings for the offence under section 5 of TNPID Act can be continued and the same will result in the discharge of the accused. For better appreciation section 5A of the Act is reproduced hereunder:- "(5A.) Compounding of offence.-(1)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 doe to the depositors with or without interest. (2) Where an offence has been compounded under sub-section (1), no proceeding or further proceeding, as the case may be, shall be taken or continued against the offender, in respect of the offence so compounded and the offender, if in custody, shall be discharged forthwith." 7. A reading of the said section will make it clear that the Competent authority can compound the offence either without the permission of the court which has to be done before the institution of prosecution or with the permission of the court after the institution of the prosecution, only on payment of the entire amount due to the depositors with or without interest. It is not the case of the revision petitioner that the entire amount due to the depositors was paid either with or without interest. On the other hand, on a misconception of the provision, the petitioner seems to have sought an order of discharge based on the alleged understanding that the competent authority could sell the properties attached under section 7 and also attach and sell the properties which are in the hands of a third person. Such a far-fetched contention that the accused are to be discharged on such an understanding cannot be accepted. Therefore, the first ground on which the petitioner has sought for discharge is bound to be rejected as untenable. 8. The next ground alleged is that the revision petitioner was not proved to be a partner of the Industrial Establishment (Firm) and there is no material collected by the investigating agency to show that the petitioner was responsible for the conduct of the affairs of the Financial Establishment and that on the said ground also, the petitioner is entitled to an order of discharge. The learned trial Judge, after perusing the records, has made clear observation, which cannot be said to be without basis, that the petitioner was a partner of the financial establishment and she also canvassed and received deposits on behalf of the firm promising to repay the same with interest; that enough materials were collected by the investigating officer to show that the petitioner was also taking part in the management of the affairs of the firm and that thus she was responsible for the conduct of the business of the firm. This court does not find any defect or infirmity in the said finding. While considering the question of discharge, the court cannot evaluate the evidence proposed to be adduced. If there are materials sufficient to support a presumption that the petitioner has committed the said offence, the same shall be enough to frame a charge and ask the accused to face trial. 9. In this case, though the golden words as such have not been reproduced, the materials collected by the investigating officer are sufficient to show a prima facie case that the petitioner was responsible for the conduct of the business of the financial establishment(firm) as its partner, more so when there are statements to the effect that she was also looking after the affairs of the firm. The court below has rightly rejected the 2nd contention also. This court does not find any defect or infirmity in the order passed by the court below. The Criminal Revision Case deserves to be dismissed. 10. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.