Challenging the order dismissing the petitioner's discharge petition, this revision has been filed.
2.The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows:
The petitioner is accused No.4 in C.C.No.42 of 2008 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Virudhunagar at Srivilliputtur. The petitioner along with three others stood charged for an offence under
Sections 409,420 and
120 (B) of I.P.C and also Section 5 of the TNPID Act. The allegation against the petitioners/accused in this case is that A-1 is the father of the petitioner; A-2 is the mother of the petitioner; A-3 is one of the brothers of the petitioner; alleging that all of them were running an unregistered chit and collected deposits from various persons totalling a sum of Rs.72,22,330/- and failed to repay the deposit amount, hence, complaints have been given by the depositors.
3.According to the petitioner, at the time of alleged collection of deposits, the petitioner was studying M.B.B.S. Course at Madurai Medical College and he did not involve in the chit business and did not collect deposits as alleged in the complaint. Hence, he filed a petition in Cr.M.P.No.174 of 2009 for discharging him from the offence. Considering the materials available on record, the Court below dismissed the petition on the ground that there are materials available prima facie to show that the petitioner along with other family members collected the amount. Now, challenging the same, this revision has filed.
4.Heard Mr.R.G.Sankar Ganesh, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.C.Mayilvahana Rajendran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent and perused the records carefully.
5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner was a student and he was at Madurai at the time of occurrence. A1 to A3/ other family members said to have conducted an unauthorised chit fund in Srivilliputtur and said to have collected the deposits, in which, the petitioner has no role and he has not involved in the collection of deposits.
6.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that totally, there are 95 depositors. Statements of all the depositors clearly show that the petitioner along with his family members collected the deposits. Hence, there are materials available on record to show that the petitioner is involved in the collection of deposits and there is a prima facie material against the petitioner.
7.I have considered the rival submissions and gone through the materials available on record.
8.From the statements of depositors, it could be seen that the revision petitioner also along with his family members viz., A1 to A3 involved in the collection of deposits. Merely, the petitioner was at Madurai and studying MBBS Course at Madurai Medical College cannot be a ground to discharge him as there are materials available on record, regarding the petitioner's involvement in the collection of deposits. As there are prima facie materials available against the petitioner, the Court below also, after considering the same, dismissed the petition and I find no illegality or irregularity in the order. Hence, there is no merit in this revision.
9. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Since C.C.No.42 of 2008 is pending from the year 2008, the trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial and complete the same within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is also directed to co-operate with the trial. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed.
To
1.The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Virudhunagar at Srivilliputhur.
2.The Sub Inspector of Police, Economic Offence Wing, Virudhunagar.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai..