IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: HYDERABAD FIRDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1225 OF 2010 BETWEEN: Y. Swapna W/o. P. Srinivasa Rao …. Petitioners AND State of A.P., rep. by the Public Prosecutor …. Respondent HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1225 OF 2010 ORDER: This revision petition is sought to be filed by the petitioners 1 and 2 / A-3 and A-4 against order dated 21-06-2010 passed by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in Criminal M.P. No.167 of 2010 in C.C. No. 4 of 2009. A-3 is daughter and A-4 is son of A-1 and A-2. 2. It is alleged that A-1 to A-4 were running private unregistered chits among women folk in the locality ranging from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.3,00,000/- with 80 members and that A-1 was also collecting lumpsum amounts from chit members and others by offering high rate of interest upto 5% per month and that even after maturity of chit amounts, A-1 used to keep entire chit amounts with her by offering interest and giving promissory notes and that some times A-3 and A-4 gave promissory notes by signing signatures of A-1 and A-2 by forging and that A-1 along with A-2 to A-4 used to collect chit amounts by way of monthly subscriptions from the members and that finally, A-1 filed insolvency petition in the Court of Additional Senior Judge, City Courts, Hyderabad for Rs.1,14,00,000/- and disappeared along with A- 2 to A-4 by duping chit members and destroyed entire records and ledgers. Thus, A-1 to A-4 are accused of offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 420, 406 IPC and Section 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999 (in short, the Act). A-3 and A-4 filed Criminal M.P. No.167 of 2010 in the lower Court for discharging them. The lower Court passed the impugned order refusing to discharge the petitioners from the case. 3. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that simply because A-3 and A-4, who are children, executed certain promissory notes towards amounts payable by A-1, that will not mulct them with criminal liability for the offences for which the charge sheet was filed. It is further contended that it may create civil liability or moral liability and will not create criminal liability. Even the witnesses / victims who are examined by the police during investigation stated that A-1 and also A- 2 to A-4 were collecting chit subscriptions from the members. Some of the witnesses stated that A-3 and A-4 executed promissory notes as if they were executed by A-1 and A-2 in favour of the members. As per Section 5 of the Act, in case any financial establishment defaults in return of deposit or any payment of interest on the deposit, “every person responsible for the management of the affairs of the financial establishment including the promoter, manager or member of the financial establishment” are liable for punishment. In the case on hand, it is an unregistered private business establishment being run by A-1 to A-4 together, though A-1 was at the helm of affairs. It appears to be a family business concern. Specific allegations are made against A-3 and A-4 about their participation in the business by way of collection of chit subscriptions from members and also execution of promissory notes in favour of the persons to whom money is payable. Further allegation was made against A-3 and A-4 that they executed promissory notes by forging signatures of A-1 and A-2 in favour of the members. Truth or otherwise of these allegations have to be decided after trial of the case in the lower Court. 4. Having regard to the above allegations and material collected by the police during investigation, this Court is of the opinion that A-3 and A-4 are not liable to be discharged. The order passed by the lower Court does not suffer from any infirmity. 5. Hence, the revision petition is dismissed. __________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J July 16, 2010 KTL