J B ASSOCIATES Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first peti tioner herein, namely J.B. Associates, is a partnership firm, doing business as a fin ancier and the other petitioners are the part ners in the first petitioner firm. They are being prosecuted for offences punishable under Sections 420 IPC and Section 5 of the TANPID Act.

(2.) A case was registered on the file of Economic Offences Wing II, Vellore as Crime No.l of 2008, on receipt of a complaint from the depositors that petitioners 2 to 4, as the partners of the first petitioner firm, collected deposits from public with a prom ise to give them higher rate of interest and lured them to make such deposits and that when the time for making repayment of the deposited amount came, they committed default and failed to repay the amount col lected as deposits with the promised inter est. Upon conducting an investigation, the Investigating Officer, on the materials col lected by him submitted a final report, in which it has been stated that petitioners 2 to 4 started a financial institution originally in the name and style of Hi-yield Finances and Hi-yield Investments in the year 1995 and the same was dissolved as per Docu ment No.2/2003 dated 28.05.2003 with ef fect from 31.03.2002; that subsequently, they started a new firm in the name and style of J.B. Associates and collected depos its to the tune of Rs.96,95,400/- from 57 de positors and that they failed to pay either interest or principal, except the payment of the interest upto certain period alone. The said final report was taken on file by the learned Special Judge under TANPID Act, Chennai as C.C.No.l of 2009.

(3.) On appearance, the petitioners filed a petition before the trial Court in Crl.M.P.No.462 of 2010 in the abovesaid calendar case under Section 239 Cr.P.C seeking discharge. The learned Special Judge under TANPID Act, after consider ing the petition and the materials produced by the Investigating Officer along with the final report, came to the conclusion that there were materials to make out a prima facie case for the alleged offences and there were grounds to proceed further against the petitioners. Accordingly, the said petition was dismissed by an order dated 24.09.2010. The said order is sought to be challenged in this criminal revision.