Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. The respondent has contended that A1 to A8 committed default in repayment of deposits and interests to the de facto complainants even after maturity. The petitioner ranked as A7 actively participated in the business of the financial establishment inasmuch as she canvassed and collected deposits from the depositors. It is contended that as she had taken responsibility for the management of the affairs of the financial establishment, she has been charge-sheeted by the respondent police.

3. The points that arise for determination is (1)whether the petitioner, who allegedly canvassed for mobilising deposit for the financial institution is liable to answer the charge under section 5 of the TNPID Act.

(2) Whether the petitioner was responsible for the management of the affairs of the financial institution.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently submit that the first information report does not disclose that she ever canvassed for mobilising deposits for the financial institution. He would also submit that mere canvassing for the business of the partnership firm will not amount to shouldering the responsibility of the management of the affairs of the financial institution. Therefore, he would submit that the petitioner, who has been roped in for the offence under section 5 of the TNPID Act just because she happened to be the wife of the second accused is entitled for discharge from the criminal proceedings.

12. The fact remains that the petitioner was not a partner of the partnership firm charged in this case under section 5 of the TNPID Act. The only allegation levelled by the witnesses examined on the side of the prosecuting agency is that the petitioner canvassed for deposits for the financial institution. To invoke the penal provision under section 5 of the TNPID Act, one should shoulder the responsibility of managing the affairs of the financial firm or company. I find that the provision under section 5 of the TNPID Act has been drafted very carefully. A person who merely manages the affairs of a firm or a company viz., Clerks, Accountants, Office Assistants, who are just paid servants would not be responsible for the management in the sense that they are not answerable to the claim made against the financial firm. In other words, a person, who simply manages the affairs of a firm, cannot be said to have taken the responsibility of answering the allegation of mis-management of the affairs of the firm. The Clerks, Accountants and Office Assistants come under the said category. They have been given a role to manage the affairs of the partnership firm, but, they are not responsible for the mis-management of the firm when the same is under challenge by a third party. All the persons who manage the affairs of the financial institution need not necessarily be responsible for the management of the affairs of the institution. What is required under section 5 of the TNPID Act is that the person charged should have been responsible for the management of the affairs of the institution. The persons who simply manages the affairs of the financial institution as paid servant fall out the ambit and scope of the aforesaid provision of law.

16. Therefore, the order passed by the the Special Judge, Chennai under TNPID Act, 1997 stands set aside and the petitioner is discharged from the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.47 of 2006 and as a consequence, the criminal revision case stands allowed. The connected Miscellaneous Petition stands closed.

4.8.2009.

Index: Yes.

Internet: Yes.

ssk.

To

1. The Special Judge, Chennai under TNPID Act, 1997.

2. Deputy Superintendent of Police, (Economic Offence Wing), Cuddalore, Cuddalore District.