High Court of Madras
Case Law Search
S.Suseela v. State - Crl. RC No.573 of 2005  RD-TN 2051 (22 June 2007)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN Crl. R.C. No.573 of 2005
Crl. M.P. No.3811 of 2005
4. M.Soundarapandian .. Petitioners/accused Vs
rep.by The Inspector of Police
ECO. Wing II
(Crime NO.2/2000) .. Respondent/complainant
This Revision is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 2.3.2005 in Crl.M.P.No.204 of 2005 in C.C.No.15 of 2001 on the file of the Special Judge under TNPID Act, Chennai. For petitioners : Mr.C.Vijayakumar For respondent : Mr.V.R.Balasubramaniam, Additional Public Prosecutor O R D E R
Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and also the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. It is the admitted case that only on the petition filed byA2 for re-investigation and that on the same day, he withdrew the petition since the Investigating Officer has filed another petition under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. for re-investigation and after re-investigation only the Investigating Officer has examined 30 witnesses who have already been examined by him at the time of filing of First Information report in this case.
2. When the matter is taken up for hearing on 21.2.2007,the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners would contend that the only allegation is that these petitioners were present in the room of the Finance Company at the time, when the amount was deposited with A2 and that the receipt for the deposited amount by the depositors were also issued only by A3,Bhgayalakshmi, the wife of A2. At this juncture, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would represent that he will produce the copy of the petition filed by the Investigating Officer as well as A2, before the trial Court under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. to enable this Court to know on what ground those applications were filed. Unless those applications are perused, we cannot come to a conclusion whether there is prima facie case alleged against these petitioners. For production of a copy of applications filed by the Investigating Officer under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C by the petition was adjourned to to-day.
3. Even today, when the matter is taken up, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor is not in a position to file the copy of the applications filed under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. before the trial Court by the Investigating Officer. But the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that out of the petitioners 1 to 4 herein, petitioners 1,2, and 3 are the partners of Shanmuga Finance and that it is a registered firm. Form A under the Registration Act has also been produced by the prosecution and it is rightly available with the case records. It shows that Shanmuga Finance was registered under Registration Sl.No.81/90 by the Registrar of Firm,Virudhunagar on 5.4.1990.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners would represent that the petitioners have been charged under Section 120-B of IPC also but there is prima facie no evidence to connect these petitioners with the crime and even in Insolvency Petition filed by Bhgayalakshmi, the wife of A2, she has not implicated these petitioners as a parties. But those points are to be considered only by the trial Court.
5.Now at this stage, we cannot take the powers of the trial Court and relieve these petitioners 1 to 3 on the ground that there is no prima facie material against them to proceed with the charges levelled against them. But as far as the 4th petitioner is concerned, admittedly, he is not a partner in Shanmuga Finance as seen from Form A under the Registration Act.
6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would represent that 4th petitioner is a partner in Shanmuga Chit Funds run by these petitioners but a perusal of the charge sheet will go to show that the complaint has been lodged only against Shanmuga Finance and its partners and not against the Shanmuga Chit Funds.
7.Under such circumstances, I am of the view that there is no prima facie case made out against the 4th petitioner viz.,M.Soundarapandian to proceed with C.C.No.15 of 2001.
8. In fine, the revision is allowed in part and the 4th petitioner M.Soundarapandian is ordered to be discharged from the charges levelled against him. As against revision petitioners 1 to 3, the revision is dismissed, confirming the order passed by the learned Special Judge under TNPID Act, Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.204 of 2005 dated 2.3.2005. Consequently, connected Crl.M.P.No.3811 of 2005 is closed.
9.The trial Judge is directed to expedite the trial in C.C.No.15 of 2001 and dispose of the same within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. sg
1. The Special Judge for TNPID Act
2. The Inspector of Police
3. The Public Prosecutor
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.