JUDGMENT 1. The Petitioner/A9 has focused the instant Criminal Revision Petition as against the order dated 15.10.2012 in Crl.M.P.No.1101 of 2008 in C.C.No.36 of 2008 passed by the Learned Special Judge under TNPID Act Cases, Madurai. 2. The Learned Special Judge, under the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1997 Madurai, while passing the impugned order dated 15.10.2012 in Crl.M.P.No.1101 of 2008 in C.C.No.36 of 2008 has inter alia observed that '…There are lot of materials on record to proceed with the case and there is a prima facie case made out against the petitioner and most of the depositors had given complaints as well as statements against the petitioner and whatever the contention of the petitioner that being he is an Income Tax Assessee and he has means to purchase the property, these things are only to be decided in the trial and therefore at this juncture, on finding that there is prima facie case, the petitioner's contentions are totally rejected' and consequently, dismissed the petition and directed the petitioner to face the trial with other accused and proceed with the case in the manner known to law. 3. According to the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Accused, the trial court should have seen that as per Charge Sheet, no offence is made out against the Revision Petitioner. 4. It is the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/A9 that there is no evidence available as if A1 to A17 conspired and collected money from the depositors. 5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/A9 urges before this Court that the Petitioner/A9 never participated either in the day to day affairs or in the Administration of A1 Company and in fact, Section 5 of the TNPID Act has no application as regards the role played by the petitioner. 6. Yet another plea taken on behalf of the Petitioner/A9 is that the trial court has dismissed the Discharge Petition in Crl.M.P. No. 1101 of 2008 on the premise that the Revision Petitioner is father-in-law of the fourth accused, who is the son of the third accused. 7. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/A9 strenuously contends that the Petitioner/A9’s name does not find place in the First Information Report and no overt act is attributed against the petitioner. 7. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/A9 strenuously contends that the Petitioner/A9’s name does not find place in the First Information Report and no overt act is attributed against the petitioner. Also that there is no documentary evidence available in the case to show that the Petitioner/A9 received any money from any one of the depositors or issued any receipt on behalf of A1 company to any one of the depositors at any point of time. 8. Lastly, it is the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/A9 that in as much as the charge sheet filed by the Respondent/ Police is based on false investigation without appreciation of available evidence and materials on record. The Petitioner/A9 has been constrained to file Discharge Petition i.e. Crl.M.P.No.1101 of 2008 before the trial court. But the same has been dismissed by the trial court on 15.10.2012. assigning untenable reasons, which are not sustainable in the eye of law. 9. Per contra, it is the contention of the Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the Respondent/Police that the Petitioner/A9 is connected with the case and further, the depositors have spoken out participation of the Petitioner/A9 in the commission of offence and in fact, the depositors have deposited their money in A1 Company and also that the petitioner is connected with A1 Company. As such, the trial court has assigned valid reasons while dismissing the Discharge Petition in Crl.M.P.No.1101 of 2008 and the same may not be interfered with by this Court sitting in Revisional Jurisdiction. 10. Countering the contentions of the Learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the Respondent/Police, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/A9 submits that no single chit or receipt has been issued by the Petitioner/A9 as if he has collected money from the depositors and that the petitioner is not having any access with A1Financial Establishment and to connect the Petitioner/A9 with A1/Financial Establishment, no material has been produced in the instant case and as such, Crl.M.P.No.1101 of 2008 filed by the Petitioner/A9 prayed for his Discharge/Release from the main case is to be allowed by this Court to promote substantial cause of justice. 11. 11. Yet another contention of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/A9 is that as per Section 5 of the TNPID Act, the petitioner must be responsible for the management of affairs of the company and in the instant case on hand, there is no material produced by the prosecution for any connection of the Petitioner/A9 with that of A1-Financial Establishment. 12. In short, the arguments of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/A9 is that without iota of evidence, the trial court cannot come to a conclusion that the Petitioner/A9 is a partner of A1/Financial Establishment. 13. At this Juncture, the Learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the respondent submits that K.K.Ramesh Babu/A6 in the confessional statement dated 23.09.1999 has stated that the Petitioner/A9 is a partner. This has been repudiated by the Learned Counsel for the Petition/A9 who contends that confession of A6 cannot be used against the Petitioner/A9 (co-accused) under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act and in short, the said confession cannot be used as a piece of evidence against the Petitioner/A9. 14. The stand of the Petitioner/A9 also proceeds to the effect that out of 1054 Deposit Receipts, no receipt has been issued by him. 15. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/ A9 submits that even though 1147.480 grams of jewels have been recovered from the Petitioner/A9 on the basis of search and seizure. Yet, jewels cannot be a linking fact in so far as the Petitioner/A9 is concerned. Also that no sale deed has been recovered by the Respondent/Police in the name of the Petitioner/A9 and there is no evidence to show for the purchase of 40 plots in issue. 16. According to the Learned Government Advocate(Crl.side)A1 K.L.Krishnamoorthy has given confession on 25.02.1999 stating that he has given more than 50 sovereigns of jewels to his father-in-law K.K.Seshien the Petitioner/A9,the jewel being purchased from and out of the Finance Company. But the Learned counsel for the Petitioner/A9 submits that confession of co-accused A1 relied on by the prosecution is not admissible as per Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. But the admissibility or the validity or otherwise of the confession of A1,in the considered opinion of this Court is to be gone into by the trial court at the time of final hearing/trial of pending C.C.No.36 of 2008. But the admissibility or the validity or otherwise of the confession of A1,in the considered opinion of this Court is to be gone into by the trial court at the time of final hearing/trial of pending C.C.No.36 of 2008. Therefore, this Court is not expressing any opinion on the merits of the main case in the interest of justice. 17. At this stage, this Court points out that in the final report filed by the Respondent/Police, it is inter alia mentioned that the investigation reveals that all the accused collected deposit in the name of A1 K.L.Krishnamoorthy, K.R.Sudharsan Small Saving Sandha Chit at No.22 Lakshmipuram II Street Madurai. 18. Further, it is also stated that the investigation reveals that all the accused collected deposits from the depositors from the year 1990 till the Financial Establishment has been closed in the year 1999 etc. In short, Final Report proceeds to state that all the accused are responsible for the management of the affairs of A1 K.L.Krishnamoorthy, K.R.Sudharsan Small Savings Santha Chit and collected deposits from 550 depositors 1054 deposit receipts(1054 counts)and defaulted in repayment of a sum of Rs.8,46,58,170/- (Rupees eight crores forty six lakhs fifty eight thousand one hundred and seventy only) and defaulted to repay interest on the deposit a sum of RS.6,09,53,827/-(Rupees six crores nine lakhs fifty three thousand eight hundred and twenty seven only) a total sum of Rs.14,56,11,977/-(Rupees fourteen crores fifty six lakhs eleven thousand nine hundred and seventy seven only). 19. It is not out of place for this Court to make a significant mention of Section 5 of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1997 which runs hereunder: 5. Default in repayment of deposits and interests honouring the commitment.-Notwithstanding anything contained in Chapter II, where any Financial Establishment defaults the return of the deposit or defaults the payment of interest on the deposit, (or fails to return in any kind, or fails to render service for which the deposit has been made), every person responsible for the management of the affairs of the Financial Establishment shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years and with fine which may extend to one lakh of rupees and such Financial Establishment is also liable for fine which may extend to one lakh of rupees. 20. 20. A1/Financial Establishment is not registered before the Registrar of Firms and before the Registrar of Chits, Madurai. It is also not registered before the Registrar of Companies at Chennai. The first complaint is reportedly received on 20.02.1999. It appears that there are 17 accused in the case and two of them namely A14 and A15 have expired. It also comes to be known that the Petitioner/A9 and A11 filed Discharge Application before the trial court. Admittedly, the trial court has dismissed the Discharge Petition namely Crl.M.P.No.1101 of 2008 filed by the Petitioner/A9 on 15.10.2012. 21. The Petitioner/A9 filed Discharge Petition namely Crl.M.P.No.1101 of 2008 under Section 227 of Criminal Procedure Code. It cannot be gainsaid that the word 'ground' in Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code does not mean a ground for conviction but a ground for numbering the accused on trial as per decision of Honourable Supreme Court in STREE ATYACHAR VIRODHI PARISAB Vs. DILIP CHORDIA – 1989 SCC (Crl) at page 285. 22. This Court aptly cites the following decision to prevent an aberration of Justice. (1) In G.S.RAMARAO GUPTA AD G. ANAND SWAROOP Vs. 1. THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY & DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER, SALEM AND 2. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU, REP. BY THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ECONOMIC OFFENCE WING II, SALEM {2011 (1) L.W. - 361}, wherein at page 362, it has held that “Act is mainly intended to protect the rights of the depositors and incidentally a penal provision is made for the defaulters of re-payment of deposits to the depositors and interest to the depositors on the deposits collected from them.” (2) In the order of this Court in Crl.R.C.(MD) No.508 of 2011 and M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2011 dated 19/1/2012 between R.SAROJA, INGRITTA AND S. SEKAR Vs. THE STATE, THROUGH THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CENTRAL CRIME BRANCH, THOOTHUKUDI DISTRICT (IN CRIME No.9 OF 2005), wherein at paragraph Nos.4 to 8, it is observed and is laid down as under:- “4. THE STATE, THROUGH THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CENTRAL CRIME BRANCH, THOOTHUKUDI DISTRICT (IN CRIME No.9 OF 2005), wherein at paragraph Nos.4 to 8, it is observed and is laid down as under:- “4. Section 239 of Code of Criminal Procedure says that: If upon considering the police report and the documents sent with if under Section 173 and making such examination, if any, of the accused as the Magistrate thinks necessary and after giving the prosecution and the accused an opportunity of being heard, the Magistrate considers the charge against the accused to be groundless, he shall discharge the accused, and record his reasons for so doing. 5. Section 239 refers to the opinion of the Magistrate that the charge against the accused to be groundless, as the ground for discharge. It shall not be proper to read Section 239 Cr.P.C, in isolation section 239 should be read in conjunction with the succeeding section, namely Section 240 of Cr.P.C., which says: “If upon such consideration, examination, if any, and hearing, the Magistrate is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence triable under this Chapter (Chapter XIX) which such Magistrate is competent to try and which, in his opinion could be adequately punished by him, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused.” 6. A conjoint reading of Section 239 and 249 of Cr.P.C., will show that the Investigating Officer might have committed a mistake in referring to the penal provisions, but consideration of the report and the documents and after hearing, if the Magistrate comes to the conclusion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed any other offence triable by him, then there would not be any question of discharging the accused and the Magistrate is bound to frame a charge for such an offence. In this case, the learned Special Judge, who is deemed to be a Magistrate as per Section 13 of TNPID Act, has failed to consider whether there are materials making out a ground for presuming that the petitioners herein (A.5, A.6 and A.8) have committed any other offence punishable under IPC, especially an offence under Section 420 IPC. 7. At this juncture, it shall be appropriate to point the power of the Special Court under TNPID Act to try any other offence also. 7. At this juncture, it shall be appropriate to point the power of the Special Court under TNPID Act to try any other offence also. Section 6 (4) refers to such power which reads as follows:- 6 (4) When trying any case, the Special Court may also try any offence, other than an offence specified in Section 5, with which the accused, any under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Central Act 2 of 1974), be charged, at the same trial. 8. In case, there was a conspiracy to commit an offence and such an offence is committed pursuant to the conspiracy, then all the persons who were parties to the conspiracy shall be liable to be prosecuted for the said offence as if the offence was committed by him also. Offence under Section 5 of the TNPID Act can also be projected against others in case, there was such conspiracy pursuant to which the offence came to be committed. Similarly, if there are materials sufficient to show the existence of a prima facie case that an offence of cheating punishable under Section 420 IPC has been committed by the erstwhile partners in collusion with the existing partners, they cannot be entirely discharged and the Court has to consider whether there is any ground for presuming the commission of such an offence by such petitioners also. Unfortunately, the learned Special Judge failed to consider the above aspects.” 23. It cannot be lost sight of that after charge has been framed, it is not open to a court of law to discharge an accused as per decision TAPATI BAG Vs. PATITPABAN GHOSH AND OTHERS {1993 CRI.L.J 3932 (Calcutta Division Bench)}. 24. At the time of framing charge, the test of prima facie case is to be applied. At the time of framing of charge, the probative value of material on record cannot be gone into, the materials on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage, in the considered opinion of this Court. 25. It is true that mere suspicion is not enough and there must be prima-facie case to frame charge where the materials disclosed grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained. 25. It is true that mere suspicion is not enough and there must be prima-facie case to frame charge where the materials disclosed grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained. The court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial as per decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar reported in AIR 1999 SC 366. 26. Where there are some materials to hold that there is a very strong suspicion which is sufficient to form a opinion presumptive opinion, as to the existence of factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged, framing of charge is proper as per decision in the case of R.N.Jeyaprakash Vs. State 1998 Crl.J page 3232(Madras). 27. If strong suspicion is created the court cannot say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. For framing of charge the court of law is to consider judicially whether on consideration of materials on record it can be said that the accused has been reasonably connected with the offence and that there is a reasonable probability or chance of the accused being found guilty. If the reply is in affirmative then the court is at liberty to frame a charge against the accused, as opined by this Court. The court need not undertake a detailed enquiry in sifting and weighing the materials on record. Also it is not necessary for the court to go deep into the various aspects. Indeed, the truthfulness or otherwise of the documents would not be assessed and concluded at the initial stage of framing charge as per decision in the case of Gopal Garg Vs. Mathya Pradesh Government, 2008 Crl.J 221 at page No.223. 28. Also it is not necessary for the court to go deep into the various aspects. Indeed, the truthfulness or otherwise of the documents would not be assessed and concluded at the initial stage of framing charge as per decision in the case of Gopal Garg Vs. Mathya Pradesh Government, 2008 Crl.J 221 at page No.223. 28. Be that as it may, although the First Information Report is only a piece of document to commence the investigation, yet in the present case the probative value of the materials collected by the prosecution on record is to be gone into by the trial court at the time of final hearing of the main case C.C.No.36 of 2008 on the file of the trial court and at this stage, it cannot be state that prima facie there are no materials available on record against the Petitioner/A9.Therefore, it is not feasible for this Court to discharge the Petitioner/A9 from the case in C.C.No.36 of 2008 in Crime No.17 of 1999 on the file of the trial court. Further more, this Court on going through the contents of the dismissal order passed in Crl.M.P.No.1101 of 2008 dated 15.10.2012 is of the considered view that the said order does not suffer from any material irregularity or patent illegality in the eye of law. 29. Viewed from the aforesaid upshot of discussions, the Criminal Revision fails and the same is dismissed for the reasons assigned by this Court in this revision to promote substantial cause justice. Liberty is granted to the Petitioner/A9 to raise all factual and legal pleas before the trial court at the time of conduct of trail in C.C.NO.36 of 2008 and to seek appropriate remedy if he so desires/so advised in the manner known to law and in accordance with law. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition No.1 of 2012 is also dismissed.