JUDGMENT (Prayer: Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Section 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the order in Crl.M.P.No.702 of 2015 dated 19.08.2015 in C.C.No.4 of 2015 on the file of the Special Judge, Special Court under TANPID Act Court cases, Coimbatore and discharge the petitioner from the charges levelled by the respondent police.) 1. The petitioner is one of the accused in the case pending before the TNPID Court, Coimbatore in C.C.No.04/2015 for offences under Sections 120B, 406 and 420 IPC r/w Section 5 of TNPID Act, 1997. 2. According to the final report, M/s Sunrays Trading Corporation, Nammakal (A-1), the proprietory firm registered under the Tamil Nadu Commercial Tax Department announced several investment schemes like, (i)Rs.5000/- interest per month for investment of Rs.1,00,000/- i.e 60% interest per annum, (ii)1 kg Gold + 20 gms Gold coin bonus, for deposit of Rs.1,40,000/- each for 15 months, (iii)1 kg Gold + 20 gms Gold coin bonus, for deposit of Rs.1,05,000/- each for 20 months, (iv)½ kg Gold + 5 gms Gold coin bonus, for deposit of Rs.70,000- each for 15 months, (v) 250 grms Gold + 5 gms Gold coin bonus, for deposit of Rs.26,250/- each for 20 months. 3. The second accused, who floated the first acused company, through accused 3 to 7, collected money from several persons under the above schemes promising moonshine return, but failed to keep their promise on maturity of the investment. One of the investors by name Ramasamy, who deposited Rs.1,00,000/- in his name and Rs.13,07,500/- in his wife name, set the law into motion by his complaint, when he came to know that the first accused firm, after collecting deposits from several persons through accused 2 to 7 closed the firm and persons, who collected money had absconded. 4. Investigation had revealed, apart from the defacto complainant Ramasamy, 45 depositors had invested their money believing the words of A-2 to A-7 and totally sum of Rs.74,41,384/- had been cheated. This petitioner working as a Teacher and arrayed as 5th accused for offence of conspiracy and cheating, since he has canvassed public and induced them to invest their money in the first accused Firm. From the Bank account of A-1 Firm, it is seen that the petitioner had shared Rs.27,24,267/- from out of the money deposited by the investors. 5. This petitioner working as a Teacher and arrayed as 5th accused for offence of conspiracy and cheating, since he has canvassed public and induced them to invest their money in the first accused Firm. From the Bank account of A-1 Firm, it is seen that the petitioner had shared Rs.27,24,267/- from out of the money deposited by the investors. 5. The petitioner claims that he is one among the depositors and the money he got is the return for his investment. He only acted as a Commission Agent and informed the defacto complainant Ramasamy about the schemes available in the first accused firm. He is no way responsible for the money invested by the defacto complainant or other depositors. He is not connected with the management of the affairs of the Finance Company which has failed to repay the investments. He cannot be prosecuted under Section 5 of the TNPID Act since he is not in charge of the Financial Firm but only a paid Agent. 6. With the above plea, this petitioner sought for discharge under Section 239 of Cr.P.C before the trial Court, but the trial Court dismissed his petition. Against the said order, the above criminal revision petition is filed. 7. The documents relied by the prosecution and annexed along with the final report reveals, the second accused Muthukumar had got his business “M/s SUNRAYS TRADING CORPORATION” registered under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 for trading with commodities like, Home Appliances, Electric Rice Cooker, Induction stoves, Computers, Spares, Fancy Goods, Torch Lights, Software, Educational Kids. The petitioner is the School Teacher. The defacto complainant in his complaint had specifically mentioned the name of this petitioner as the person along with others, who induced him to deposit totally Rs.13,07,500/-. The evidence collected in the course of investigation reveals that, A-2 who is the proprietor of the first accused firm, had registration only to trade with household articles and not to do finance business. A-2 illegally had run the business by showing his TIN Number to the investors. To hide the illegality, the receipts for the deposit is given as it is the advance for household articles. The petitioner admits that he got commission for inducing the depositors to make investment in the A-1 Firm which is not a registered Finance Company. A-2 illegally had run the business by showing his TIN Number to the investors. To hide the illegality, the receipts for the deposit is given as it is the advance for household articles. The petitioner admits that he got commission for inducing the depositors to make investment in the A-1 Firm which is not a registered Finance Company. He had made the depositors to believe that they are investing in a Firm, which is duly registered under law to do finance business and the said firm will give unrealistic returns. The petitioner contends that the depositors must be aware and the petitioner cannot be held responsible for cheating by the Firm. The doctrine of caveat emptor will not apply to criminal law, when the deception to cheat is prima facie established not only through unrealistic promise but also by issuing receipts as if it is advance for house hold articles. 8. The statements of S.Lakshmi (LW-16) and P.Lakshmi (LW-25), incriminating this petitioner and the receipts issued to them for the money received from them clearly show the intention of deception at the inception. 9. Therefore, this Court finds, the petitioner, who is charged for conspiracy to cheat, has to face trial and the trial Court's order dismissing the discharge petition is legally sustainable. 10. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case in Crl.R.C.No.1066 of 2015 is dismissed. Consequentially, Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed. Stay of the trial if granted shall stand vacated.