“The fact remains that the Petitioner was not a partner of the partnership firm charged in this case under Section 5 of the TNPID Act. The only allegation levelled by the witnesses examined on the side of the prosecuting agency is that the Petitioner canvassed for deposits for the financial institution. To invoke the penal provision under Section 5 of the TNPID Act, one should shoulder the responsibility of managing the affairs of the financial Firm or Company. I find that the provision under Section 5 of the TNPID Act has been drafted very carefully. A person who merely manages the affairs of a Firm or a Company viz., Clerks, Accountants, Office Assistants, who are just paid servants would not be responsible for the management in the sense that they are not answerable to the claim made against the financial firm. In other words, a person, who simply manages the affairs of a Firm, cannot be said to have taken the responsibility of answering the allegation of mis-management of the affairs of the firm. The Clerks, Accountants and Office Assistants come under the said category. They have been given a role to manage the affairs of the partnership Fir, but they are not responsible for the mis-management of the Firm when the same is under challenge by a third party. All the persons who manage the affairs of the financial institution need not necessarily be responsible for the management of the affairs of the institution. What is required under Section 5 of the TNPID Act is that the person charged should have been responsible for the management of the affairs of the institution. The persons who simply manages the affairs of the financial institution as paid servant fall out the ambit and scope of the aforesaid provision of law.”
