Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

11.It is so reflected in the decision of this Court in Crl.R.C(MD).No.447 of 2013 (Bharatharaj Vs. The State represented by the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch Theni Distruct and another, Wherein, this Court dealt with the distinction between the words “Every person responsible for the management of the affairs of the financial establishment” found in Sec.5 of TNPID Act” Wherein, it has been clearly held under Section 5 of TNPID Act, the word “Every person responsible for the management of the affairs of the financial Establishment means and includes “The person concerned is responsible for the management of the company without involving himself in the business of the company. Similarly, a person may be responsible for the management as well as the business of the company” http://www.judis.nic.in Wherein, the phrase over person has been given effect to the word “Every Person” provided under Section 5 of TNPID Act includes, “Every person responsible for the management of the Company either involving himself in day to day affairs of the company or firm or without involving himself in day-to-day affairs of the company or firm”

12.It remains to be stated that to say a person is involved in day to day affairs of the Company or a firm with or without involving himself is to be ascertain from the statement available under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.

13.In the decision reported in 2017 SCC online Madras 22970 as cited supra, wherein, I had an occasion to deal with the similar circumstances, and had held that in the absence of any positive evidence to infer about the alleged responsibility in conduct of the firm a person cannot be roped in by virtue of Section 5 of TNPID Act, which reads as follows:

“What is required under Section 5 of TNPID Act is that “every person responsible for the management of the affairs of the financial establishment”. All the accused are family members. They had not participated in the affairs of the chit fund. But no such records have been produced by the investigating Agency sating that A.5, A.6 and A.7 were http://www.judis.nic.in actively participated in the day-to-day affairs of the establishment.”
“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 http://www.judis.nic.in 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 Fir, 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 http://www.judis.nic.in institution as paid servant fall out the ambit and scope of the aforesaid provision of law.”