S.SUNIL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is filed, aggrieved by the order of the learned Special Judge, Special Court under TNPID, Act, Chennai, dtd. 12/1/2022 in Crl.M.P.No.828 of 2021 in C.C.No.12 of 2020, in and by which, the application filed by the petitioner for discharge, has been dismissed.

(2.) Heard Mr. Arun Anbumani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Vinoth Kumar, learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) for the respondent.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is only a distant relative of One Mr.Ramamoorthy, who was running the defaulting financial establishment. As a matter of fact, on account of estranged relationship due to the fact that petitioner married a girl of his choice, the petitioner is living away from the family for a long time near Ponneri, in Chennai. After sometime, the family had accepted and he started moving again with the family members. He was also present at the death of Ramamoorthy, and at that time, agitated depositors came to the spot along with several relatives, and he merely pacified the depositors, by stating that the legal representatives will take care and the amounts will be returned. Except that, he has got nothing to do with the financial establishment. The petitioner is neither a Director nor an employee, and no document whatsoever has been signed by the petitioner. Even taking the materials filed by the prosecution on face value, except the stereotypical statements of the victims mentioning the name of the petitioner, there is no other material evidence to connect the petitioner with the occurrence. The said stereotypical statement given by all the victims is reproduced as follows:-