1. The accused Nos.7, 8, 9, 10, 16, 17, 19, 21 & 22 in C.C.No.459/2015 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Mavelikkara, have filed Crl.R.P. No.721/2017, aggrieved by the dismissal of C.M.P.No.3303/2016 filed before the learned Magistrate seeking their discharge from the criminal proceedings in the aforesaid case. Crl.R.P.No.765/2017 is fled by the 12th accused in the said case aggrieved by the dismissal of C.M.P.No.4515/2016, in respect of the same relief for discharge from the criminal prosecution in C.C.No.459/2015 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Mavelikkara.

2. The final report in the said case was filed by the CBCID, Economic Offences Wing, alleging the commission of offences under Sections 406 & 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 58(b), 4A & 58(c) of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, and Section 3 of the Kerala Chitties Act, 1977. The allegation against the accused is that they collected huge amounts of money extending up to Rs.14,00,73,847/- from various depositors without licence and conducted chitties, and thereafter failed to repay the amount with interest, as assured, to the depositors.

3. In the present petitions, the petitioners would contend that they have not collected any money in the name of ‘Business India Group’, as alleged by the prosecution, and that there is no company under the said name registered with the Registrar of Companies. It is the further contention of the petitioners that this Court, as per the judgment rendered on 21.11.2013 in Company Petition Nos.41/2009, 42/2009 & 52/2009, had held that the criminal prosecution launched against the persons at the helm of affairs of the companies for having accepted deposits from the public unauthorisedly, alone could be continued.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.

5. In the order dated 12.05.2017 declining to accept the prayer of discharge of the petitioners, it has been categorically held by the learned Magistrate that the relevant records procured from the Registrar of Companies revealed that accused Nos.4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10 & 13 were shown as Directors of the company by name ‘M/s.Business India Builders & Developers Ltd.’, accused Nos.11, 12, 13, 15, 16 & 22 were shown as Directors of the company by name ‘M/s Business India Shares & Insurances Pvt. Ltd.’, and accused Nos.8, 14, 17, 19, 20 and 21 were shown as Directors of the company by name ‘M/s.Commercial Hire Purchase India Ltd.’. The learned Magistrate relied on the observations of this Court in the judgment rendered on 21.11.2013 in Company Petition No.41/2009 to hold that all the above three companies formed part of the entity ‘Business India Group’ which was involved in the collection of money from the public and the failure to repay the same. The learned Magistrate further observed that as per the Articles of Association of the aforesaid companies, the Directors are to manage the affairs of those companies. It is in the light of the aforesaid aspects revealed from the records that the learned Magistrate declined to allow the prayer of discharge of the petitioners.

6. It is true that in the judgment rendered by this Court on 21.11.2013 in C.P Nos.41/2009, 42/2009, 52/2009, 42/2012 and 5/2013, there is an observation in paragraph No.11 as follows:

                  “............... I may however add that any criminal prosecution launched against the persons at the helm of affairs of the companies for having accepted deposits from the public unauthorisedly would continue unhindered. Only the civil and criminal proceedings initiated by the public who have either deposited amounts or booked apartments paying advance terminate by the sanction of the scheme.”

7. The observations in the above regard would no way help the petitioners in seeking discharge from the criminal prosecution launched against them. This is because of the reason, as rightly observed by the learned Magistrate in the impugned order, that the Articles of Association of the Companies in respect of which the petitioners are shown as Directors, contained the relevant clauses stating that the general management and supervision of the company shall vest in the Board of Directors. Thus, the petitioners, being the Directors of the companies concerned, cannot contend that they were not at the helm of the affairs of those companies, and hence not liable to be prosecuted. At any rate, it is not possible to exonerate the petitioners as prayed for in the discharge petitions which they have filed before the learned Magistrate, since at the stage of framing of charges, the only point to be looked into by the court concerned is whether the prosecution records prima facie bring home the offences alleged. Elaborate analysis of the extent of liability of the Directors in connection with the offences alleged against them could be looked into at the stage of trial.

8. By relying on certain agreements said to have been executed by the companies, it has been argued by the counsel representing the petitioners that there was an understanding that all criminal cases instituted against the signatories of that agreement, their Directors, members or its officers shall be either withdrawn or offences shall be compounded wherever it is permissible, or quashed by the respective parties on accepting the amount fixed by the Core Committee as contemplated under the relevant clause. The aforesaid terms of understanding between the signatories of those agreements are of no consequence since the crime involved pertains to the alleged act of the petitioners defrauding the members of the general public who invested money with them believing their false assurances. It does not appear that the victims of the offence involved in this case are parties to the above agreements as per which the criminal prosecutions were agreed to be withdrawn or compounded. That being so, the petitioners cannot be heard to say that they are liable to be discharged in view of the understanding in the aforesaid agreements.

9. As already stated above, the crime involved in this case relates to the alleged act of the petitioners defrauding the various depositors who invested money with them. Going by the prosecution records, the amounts collected by the petitioners exceeded Rs.14 Crores. The collection of the aforesaid money was said to have been made without the necessary licence or authority. It could be seen from the impugned order that the learned Magistrate declined the prayer for discharge upon sound reasoning, after adverting to the relevant clauses in the Articles of Association of the companies concerned, as per which the Directors were at the helm of the affairs of the company. It is not possible to interfere with the aforesaid order of the learned Magistrate in exercise of the revisional powers of this Court. Needless to say, the revision is devoid of merits.

                  In the result, the petitions are hereby dismissed.