BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE : 31.10.2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN Crl.A.No.1826 of 2002 and Crl.M.P.No.13183 of 2002 and Crl.M.P.No.8096 of 2003 Kalaiarasi .. Appellant / petitioner / accused Vs. State by: Inspector of Police, E.O.W – II wing, Kancheepuram District. .. Respondent / Respondent / Respondent Prayer :- This appeal has been preferred under 11 of TNPID Act, 1997, against the order dated 29.11.2002 in Crl.M.P.No.1145 of 2002 in C.C.No.4 of 2002 on the file of the Special Judge for TNPID Act, (Financial Establishment), Chennai. For Appellant : Mr.R.Kumaresan, Advocate For Respondent : Mr.J.C.Durai Raj, Government Advocate (Crl. Side) JUDGMENT There is no representation for the appellant. Heard the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side). The 4th accused in C.C.No.4 of 2002 on the file of the Court of Special Judge, under TNPID Act, 1997, is the appellant herein. The petitioner had filed Crl.M.P.No.1145 of 2002 in C.C.No.4 of 2002 before the trial Court under Section 239 of Cr.P.C., to discharge her from all the charges levelleved against her in C.C.No.4 of 2002. The learned trial Judge, after going thorough the petition and the counter, had come to a conclusion that even though the petitioner is the house wife, admittedly she is a partner in the Finance Establishment ie., A1 – Swamy Chits and Finance. Even a perusal of the charge-sheet shows that in A1-Swamy Chits and Fianance, N.Arumugan – A2, P.Dhakshan-A3, Kaveri-A6, Shanmugam-A7, Kalaiarasi-A4 and Hariharan-A5 are the partners as per the Registered Partnership Deed No.179 of 1998 before the Registrar of Firms. Under such circumstances, as rightly held by the learned trial Judge, the petitioner-A4 cannot be discharged https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ under Section 239 of Cr.P.C., on the ground that she is not a partner in A1-Finance. 2.Further, this Court while dismissing the petition Crl.M.P.No.8095 of 2003 in Crl.M.P.No.13183 of 2002 in Crl.A.No.1826 of 2002 filed on behalf of the prosecution has directed the petitioner / A4 Kalaiarasi to discharge the principle amount of Rs.3,10,000/- within three months as per her undertaking given before this Court. But, so far there is no material placed before this Court to show that the petitioner had discharged the said principle amount of Rs.3,10,000/- within three months as stipulated under the order in Crl.M.P.No.8095 of 2003 in Crl.M.P.No.13183 of 2002 in Crl.A.No.1826 of 2002. 3.Under such circumstances, there is no merit in this appeal. Hence, the same is dismissed confirming the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.1145 of 2002 in C.C.No.4 of 2002 on the file of the Special Judge under TNPID Act. Stay is also vacated. The learned trial Judge is directed to dispose of C.C.No.4 of 2002 within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar ssv To, 1.The Special Judge for TNPID Act, Chennai. 2.The Inspector of Police, E.O.W – II wing, Kancheepuram District. 3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai. Copy to The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court, Madras Crl.A.No.1826 of 2002 and Crl.M.P.No.13183 of 2002 and Crl.M.P.No.8096 of 2003 RSM(CO) RVL 11.11.2008 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/