JUDGMENT : M.G. Giratkar, J. Both these revisions are against the order dated 21.04.2018 passed by the learned District Judge-7 and Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Special MPID Case No. 22 of 2005 by which applications for discharge (Exhs. 28 and 35) came to be rejected. 2. Application for discharge (Exh.28) was filed by accused No.3-Vivek Vijaykumar Thakre and accused No.4 Yogesh Vijaykumar Thakare and another application for discharge (Exh.35) was filed by accused No.1-Krishnakant Chaganlalji Chandak and accused No.2- Manoj Chaganlalji Chandak. 3. It is contended by accused Nos.1 and 2 that they are the director and managing director respectively of public limited company known as "Care Take Marketing Limited" duly incorporated under the Companies Act. The complainant lodged a false complaint against them with Police Station, Wadi, Nagpur alleging that they have received amount from the customers and agreed to pay commission of Rs.12,000/- and 25 per cent royalty every month after completion of pyramid of 31 customers. It is alleged in the report that the Company/accused Nos.1 and 2 failed to perform their promises and cheated the complainant and other investors. On the report of complainant, offences punishable under Sections 420, 406 of the Indian Penal Code and also under the provisions of Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred as MPID Act) and Section 58 of the RBI Act came to be registered against the applicants. 4. It is the contention of accused Nos.1 and 2 that they have not cheated the investors. Offence punishable under Section 3 of MPID Act and Section 58 of RBI Act are not applicable and, therefore, they pray for discharge. 5. Accused Nos.3 and 4 have stated in the application for discharge that accused Nos.1 and 2 are running the business. Accused Nos.3 and 4 used to sell the grocery articles of company/accused Nos.1 and 2. They are not involved in the transaction. They are falsely made accused. Therefore, they pray for discharge. 6. After hearing learned Counsel appearing on behalf of accused Nos.1 to 4, learned District Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.7, Nagpur, rejected both the applications. 7. Accused Nos.3 and 4 used to sell the grocery articles of company/accused Nos.1 and 2. They are not involved in the transaction. They are falsely made accused. Therefore, they pray for discharge. 6. After hearing learned Counsel appearing on behalf of accused Nos.1 to 4, learned District Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.7, Nagpur, rejected both the applications. 7. Heard Shri Shekhar Jagtap, Advocate along with Shri A.M. Kukday, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of accused Nos.1 and 2 and Shri Firdos Mirza, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of accused Nos.3 and 4 and Shri B.M. Lonare, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent/State. 8. Shri Jagtap, learned Counsel for accused Nos.1 and 2 submits that the proforma was to be filled by the customers. He has pointed out proforma filed at page No.75 of the compilation and submits that the customers are well aware about the conditions. The company has not cheated any of the customers. They were well aware about the scheme of the company. Learned Counsel has submitted that it is a style of business known as "Chain Marketing". There is nothing to show that the company has deceived any customer. Therefore, offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and other offences are not attracted. He has pointed out Sections 2 and 3 of MPID Act and submitted that accused Nos.1 and 2 doing the business as per market practice and, therefore, offences registered against the applicants are not attracted. 9. Shri Jagtap, learned Counsel for accused Nos.1 and 2 further submitted that the account of the company is freeze by Akola Urban Cooperative Bank as per letter dated 09.09.2004. The said letter is in the compilation at page No.551. Learned Counsel has pointed out the chart which is marked as "X" for identification and submitted that all the customers have no grievance against the company. Some of the customers have grievance and they wanted action against the company. He has further submitted that as per the chart, company has refunded amount to the customers and some amount is to be refunded. Learned Counsel has submitted that there is no prima facie case against the accused, the Court should have discharged the accused. Some of the customers have grievance and they wanted action against the company. He has further submitted that as per the chart, company has refunded amount to the customers and some amount is to be refunded. Learned Counsel has submitted that there is no prima facie case against the accused, the Court should have discharged the accused. He has pointed out various decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Yogesh alias Sachin Jagdish Joshi v. State of Maharashtra, (2008) 10 SCC 394 ; P. Vijayan v. State of Kerala and another, (2010) 2 SCC 398 ; Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal and another, (1979) 3 SCC 4 ; Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. and others v. State of Maharashtra, (1972) 3 SCC 282 ;Rajiv Thapar and others v. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330 ; and Salim Akhtar alias Mota v. State of U.P., (2003) 5 SCC 499 . 10. Shri Firdos Mirza, learned Counsel for accused Nos.3 and 4 has submitted that accused Nos.3 and 4 have no role in the business of the company. They were only selling the grocery articles of company from their shop. They are not concerned with the amount taken by the company. They are wrongly made accused. Therefore, he has prayed to allow the revision and discharge accused Nos.3 and 4. 11. Perused the impugned order. From the perusal of impugned order, it reveals that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has considered the material allegations against the accused persons and came to the conclusion that accused Nos.1 and 2 being the directors of company and accused Nos.3 and 4 being the service providers/employees of the company, cheated the customers, obtained the amount from the customers and thereby committed offence punishable under Sections 420, 406 of the Indian Penal Code and under the provisions of MPID Act and rejected the applications for discharge. 12. One Ashok Wasudeorao Rahate who was one of the customers has lodged report on 23.11.2003 in Police Station, Wadi. As per his report, one Fule Guruji introduced scheme of company M/s Care Taker Marketing Multilevel Company Private Limited, Nupur Apartment, 220 Lokmanya Nagar, Sadashiv Peth, Pune. As per scheme, an amount of Rs.71,569/- was to be deposited by the member and the member was allowed to purchase the grocery articles from three grocery shops at Nagpur on concessional rates. As per his report, one Fule Guruji introduced scheme of company M/s Care Taker Marketing Multilevel Company Private Limited, Nupur Apartment, 220 Lokmanya Nagar, Sadashiv Peth, Pune. As per scheme, an amount of Rs.71,569/- was to be deposited by the member and the member was allowed to purchase the grocery articles from three grocery shops at Nagpur on concessional rates. It was also shown in the scheme that each member/customer will get Rs.12,000/- per month as commission and after completion of pyramid of 31 customers, 25 per cent royalty. He had deposited Rs.71,5169/-. Only Rs.18,000/- were returned to him. He has given the information of other customers who were also cheated by the company and accused persons. On his report, investigation was conducted and during investigation, it was found that the company has accepted the amount from 15535 customers and collected Rs.4,03,75,465/- The chart produced by Shri Jagtap, learned Counsel for accused Nos.1 and 2 itself shows that the amounts of customers are not returned by the company. 13. As per Section 2 of MPID Act "deposit" is defined as under. "deposit" includes and shall be deemed always to have included any receipt of money or acceptance of any valuable commodity by any Financial Establishment to be returned after a specified period or otherwise, either in cash or in kind or in the form of a specified service with or without any benefit in the form of interest, bonus, profit or in any other form, but does not include ----." 14. Shri Jagtap, learned Counsel for accused Nos.1 and 2 has submitted the deposit accepted by the company does not include as a deposit because it was a security deposit. Nothing is on record to show that the amount accepted by accused Nos.1 and 2 was security deposit/dealership deposit and advances for orders of goods or services. From the perusal of report, it is clear that the company has accepted the deposit of Rs.71,569/- from each customer. They were given assurance to have lucrative returns of Rs.12,000/- per month as commission and 25 per cent royalty after completion of pyramid of 31 customers. Report of Investigating Officer shows that accused Nos.1 and 2 have committed fraudulent default. "3. Fraudulent Default by Financial Establishment. They were given assurance to have lucrative returns of Rs.12,000/- per month as commission and 25 per cent royalty after completion of pyramid of 31 customers. Report of Investigating Officer shows that accused Nos.1 and 2 have committed fraudulent default. "3. Fraudulent Default by Financial Establishment. Any Financial Establishment, which fraudulently defaults any repayment of deposit on maturity along with any benefit in the form of interest, bonus, profit or in any other form as promised or fraudulently fails to render service as assured against the deposit, every person including the promoter, partner, director, manager or any other person or an employee responsible for the management of or conducting of the business or affairs of such Financial Establishment shall, on conviction, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six years and with fine which may extend to one lac of rupees and such Financial Establishment also shall liable for a fine which may extend to one lac of rupees." 15. Shri Firdos Mirza, learned Counsel for accused Nos.3 and 4 has submitted that accused Nos.3 and 4 are not the employees and, therefore, they are wrongly added as accused. 16. From the reading of Section, it is clear that any financial establishment which fraudulently defaults any repayment of deposit on maturity along with any benefit in the form of interest, bonus and profit or in any other form as promised or fraudulently fails to render service as assured against the deposit, every person including the promoter, partner, director, manager or any other person or an employee responsible for the management of or conducting of the business or affairs of such Financial Establishment shall, on conviction, be punished. Accused Nos.3 and 4 were selling the grocery articles of company in their shop. They were well aware about the scheme of the company. They were very well knowing about the deposits made by the customers. Therefore, they are included as any other person as stated in Section 3 of MPID Act. 17. Shri Jagtap, learned Counsel for accused Nos.1 and 2 has pointed out above cited judgments and submitted that when there is no prima facie case to frame the charge, the Court, shall, without any hesitation, discharge the accused. There is no dispute about the proposition laid down in the above cited authorities. 17. Shri Jagtap, learned Counsel for accused Nos.1 and 2 has pointed out above cited judgments and submitted that when there is no prima facie case to frame the charge, the Court, shall, without any hesitation, discharge the accused. There is no dispute about the proposition laid down in the above cited authorities. The material brought on record, more particularly the report of investigation officer, shows that accused Nos.1 and 2 have collected the amount of Rs.4,03,75,465/- from 15535 customers. There is no entry in account of refund of the said amount by accused Nos.1 and 2. Therefore, at this stage, it prima facie appears that accused Nos.1 and 2 have collected huge amount from the customers and not refunded the same. Those amounts were collected by cheating the customers saying that they will get commission of Rs.12,000/- per month and 25 per cent royalty after completion of pyramid of 31 customers. Accused Nos.1 and 2 prima facie collected huge amount and they are liable to be prosecuted. Though accused Nos.3 and 4 not personally accepted the amount, they sold the commodities of company knowing well about the scheme of the company. As per Section 3 of MPID Act, any other persons or employees responsible for the management or conducting of the business are also liable. Accused Nos.3 and 4 were conducting the business of accused Nos.1 and 2 and, therefore, they are also liable to be prosecuted. All accused persons cheated the customers by obtaining huge amount and not refunded the same. Learned trial Court has recorded perfectly legal and correct findings. There is no perversity or illegality in the impugned order. The accused are at liberty prove their defence before the trial Court. 18. In view of the aforesaid facts, there is no merit in both the revisions. Accordingly, both the revisions are hereby dismissed.