JUDGMENT (Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 read with 401 Cr.P.C, pleased to set aside the order in Crl.M.P.No.651 of 2021 in C.C.No.6 of 2020 on the file of the Learned Special Judge, Special Court under TNPID Act, Coimbatore dated 27.09.2021.) This Criminal Revision Case is filed aggrieved by the order of the learned Special Judge, Special Court under TNPID Act, Coimbatore dated 27.09.2021 in Crl.M.P.No.651 of 2021 in C.C.No.6 of 2020, in an by which the prayer of the petitioner/5th accused to discharge her was dismissed. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is only the wife of the 3rd accused, who is a Director in one of the Financial Establishment and Proprietor of another Financial Establishment. Except for being his wife, the petitioner is not involved in the offence. He would further submit that in the original complaint given by the victims, her name was not specifically mentioned. However, only at the time of filing of charge sheet, erroneously her name has been implicated. He would also submit that even the statement of the listed witnesses would state that she worked as an Accountant and that she canvassed for the deposit. Therefore, in any event she is not in the management of the affairs of the Financial Establishment and therefore, she cannot be prosecuted. 3. I have considered the said submission and perused the materials records of this case. I am unable to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner for the following reasons. The order impugned in this Revision was passed on 27.09.2021 and it is now represented by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) that as on today, P.W.1 to P.W.20 have already been examined and the matter is now posted for examination of the Investigation Officer on 16.08.2022. Therefore, this is one last minute attempt by the accused persons to somehow protract the proceedings. 4. Therefore, this is one last minute attempt by the accused persons to somehow protract the proceedings. 4. Even otherwise, this Court in Crl.R.C.No.735 of 2022 dated 04.08.2022, had considered similar submissions and after considering the relevant judgments of the Hon-ble Supreme Court of India had taken a view that the affairs of the Financial Establishments shall mean the business affairs of the Financial Establishment and therefore, if any person, who is present in the establishment and actually canvasses for the deposits, involves himself/herself in any day to day business of the company, would still be liable to be proceeded under Section 5 of the TNPID Act and it is useful to quote the paragraph 11 to 15 of the said Judgment, which is hereunder:- ... 11. In this background, first, the petitioner cannot be discharged because, per-se there are allegations against him in respect of running the financial establishment and therefore, there is material to proceed as far as the offenses under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC. 12. Now, coming to Section 5 of TNPID Act, it is useful to extract the same as follows:- “5. Default in repayment of deposits and interest 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 a fine which may extend to one lakh of rupees.“ [Emphasis supplied] 13. The main plank of filing of the discharge application is that there is no material to show that the petitioner is responsible for the management of the affairs of the financial establishment and the aforementioned decisions of this Court is relied upon. The above judgments of this Court proceed on the ground that the -affairs of the financial establishment- means as the -control- of the ‘management’ of the establishment and even if any person canvasses for the deposit, they cannot be prosecuted. The above judgments of this Court proceed on the ground that the -affairs of the financial establishment- means as the -control- of the ‘management’ of the establishment and even if any person canvasses for the deposit, they cannot be prosecuted. In this regard, the phrase -affairs of the financial establishment-, has to be strictly interpreted as to its legal meaning. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in Neptune Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Union of India6, has held that -affairs of the company- shall mean the -business of the company- and though held in the context of Companies Act, the phrase -affairs of the company- connotes its business affairs and it is useful to extract the relevant paragraph No.26 of the said Judgment, which is as follows :- “26. It shows that the expressions “windingup of a company” and “winding-up of the affairs of a company” convey the same sense, for we think that the phrase “the affairs of a company” means the business affairs of a company. [Regina v. Board of Trade, (1965) 1 QB 603. In this case it was held that the phrase “the affairs of a company in Section 165 of the English Companies Act connotes its business affairs”. Section 165 corresponds to Section 237 of the Companies Act, 1956.]“ [Emphasis supplied] Thus, the same was not specifically considered in the above said Judgments. 14. This apart, when the Constitutional validity of the pari materia Puducherry Act, came up for consideration before the Hon-ble Supreme Court of India, in New Horizon Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Govt. of Pondicherry7, the Hon-ble Supreme Court of India, has held in paragraph No.59, as follows :- “59.............The objects of the Tamil Nadu Act, the Maharashtra Act and the Pondicherry Act being the same and/or similar in nature, and since the validity of the Tamil Nadu Act and the Maharashtra Act have been upheld, the decision of the Madras High Court [New Horizon Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Govt. of Pondicherry, Writ Appeal No. 1144 of 2006, decided on 27-3-2007 (Mad)] in upholding the validity of the Pondicherry Act must also be affirmed. We have to keep in mind the beneficial nature of the three legislations which is to protect the interests of small depositors, who invest their life-s earnings and savings in schemes for making profit floated by unscrupulous individuals and companies, both incorporated and unincorporated. We have to keep in mind the beneficial nature of the three legislations which is to protect the interests of small depositors, who invest their life-s earnings and savings in schemes for making profit floated by unscrupulous individuals and companies, both incorporated and unincorporated. More often than not, the investors end up losing their entire deposits............“ [Emphasis supplied] 15. Thus, it may be seen that it is a beneficial legislation intended to protect the victims. The offense is heinous in nature, in the sense that, unable to bear the loss, elderly victims die of stress, marriages are stopped, son/daughter-s education could not be carried on, medical expenses could not be met, etc. The concern of the Court is primarily the victims and on realising the money siphoned off. Therefore, I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner to follow the earlier judgments and discharge the petitioner, in view of the authoritative pronouncements of the Hon-ble Supreme Court of India. ...” 5. In that view of the matter, this Criminal Revision Case is without any merits and is accordingly, dismissed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.