SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2015 Supreme(AP) 387

M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO
Yousuf Bin Awad – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant: J.C. Francis
For the Respondent: Public Prosecutor (TG)

Judgement Key Points

What is the validity of initiating prosecution under Section 5 of the AP Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999 by authorities other than the designated Competent Authority (under Section 4) and Rule 5(2) of the Rules? What are the requirements under Section 207 and Section 238 Cr.P.C. for furnishing documents and conducting trial in cases under the Act, and how does noncompliance affect the trial? What is the proper authority and procedure for adding Section 5 of the Act to charges in cases already framed under IPC Sections 406 and 420, and the retrospective applicability of Rule 5(2) of the Rules?

Key Points: - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!)

What is the validity of initiating prosecution under Section 5 of the AP Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999 by authorities other than the designated Competent Authority (under Section 4) and Rule 5(2) of the Rules?

What are the requirements under Section 207 and Section 238 Cr.P.C. for furnishing documents and conducting trial in cases under the Act, and how does noncompliance affect the trial?

What is the proper authority and procedure for adding Section 5 of the Act to charges in cases already framed under IPC Sections 406 and 420, and the retrospective applicability of Rule 5(2) of the Rules?


Judgment

M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J.

1. These appeals are filed by the accused, who have been found guilty of the charge under Section 5 of the A.P. Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999 (for short 'the Act') by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in C.C. Nos. 77 of 2003 and batch, by separate judgments. Heard Sri J.C. Francis and Sri A. Prabhakara Rao, learned counsel for appellants, learned Public Prosecutor for the State of Telangana and Sri Nazir Ahmed Khan, learned counsel for de facto-complainants/respondents in the appeals.

2. The facts in all these cases are similar and common questions of law arise for consideration in these cases. Therefore, all these appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment.

3. By way of illustration, the facts in Criminal Appeal No. 1581 of 2005 arising out of C.C. No. 24 of 2004 on the file of the above Court are set out hereunder.

4. A-1 and A-2 are brothers. A-3 is wife of A-1, A-5 is son-in-law of A-1, A-4 is elder brother of A-5, A-4 and A-5 are residents of Sikh Village, Secunderabad. A-6 is son of A-1 and A-3.

5. The case of prosecution is that accused were running a finance company styled as Awad Agro Farms Pr



























































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top