Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATES OF TELANGANA AND ANDHRA PRADESH
T. Rajani, J.
Margadarsi Financiers and Others – Appellants
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Petition Nos. 5971, 6280 of 2011
Decided On : 31-12-2018
Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Sections 218, 219 and 220 - Trial for more then one offence - Held, Complaint against petitioners not for any one such offence but for their acts of collecting deposits from depositors with promise to repay them within a certain period -It is not any one particular act of collection of deposits that is brought to prosecution - Hence, It cannot be said distinct offences are alleged against petitioners - It is only one offence that is alleged i.e. transaction of collection of deposits - Therefore court opines that this case falls under section 220 of Cr.P.C. - Criminal Petition dismissed.(Para 6 and 7)
A.P. Reorganization Act, 2014 - Section 105 - No specificity in complaint,a s to whether alleged offrnces fall within State of Andhra Pradesh or State of Telangana -Held, Complaint has fail on that count - Proper reading of Section 105 of A.P. Reorganization Act shows that if proceeding pending immediately before appointed day in Court of Andhra Pradesh, shall if it a proceeding relating exclusively to territory, which as from that day are territories of state of Telangana, stand transferred to corresponding court of that state - Averments in complaint can be understood to mean that business of petitioners herein was carried on by collecting deposits from both States, hence, said contention does not stand to merit - (Para 21 and 22)
Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 - Section 45S(1)(i) and (ii) and 45S(2) - Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Section 482 - Business by Hindu Undivided family - Quashing of proceedings - Petitioners contended that RBI Act does not apply to Hindu Undivided Family - Complaint against for offences under RBI Act - Unincorporated association - Held, Law laid down by Apex Court and various High Courts, concluded that HUF cannot be termed as an association of individuals and it cannot be brought within purview of Section 45S of R.B.I. Act -Allegations against individual are no averments in complaint to say that he personally collected any deposits from public - No depositors have come forward with any complaint against petitioners in pursuance of allegations made in complaint - Petitioners exercise of paying back deposits be understood that there was no malafide intention on part of petitioners to commit any offences with regard to deposits collected from depositors - Hence Court opines, that this is a case where inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. can be exercised for quashing proceedings against petitioners/accused - Criminal Petition allowed (Para 8,10,20,27,28 and 29)
Facts of the case:
These two Criminal Petitions, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. are filed by same Petitioners/Accused, separately, seeking to quash order and also to quash proceedings by virtue of which, trial Court dismissed Petition filed under Sections 218 and 219 of Cr.P.C. seeking to restrict their examination under Section 251 of Cr.P.C. to any three offences either under Section 45S(1)(i) and/or 45S(ii) punishable under Section 58E of Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 .
Findings of the case:
Law laid down by Apex Court and various High Courts, concluded that HUF cannot be termed as an association of individuals and it cannot be brought within purview of Section 45S of R.B.I. Act. Allegations against individual are no averments in complaint to say that he personally collected any deposits from public. No depositors have come forward with any complaint against petitioners in pursuance of allegations made in complaint. Petitioners exercise of paying back deposits be understood that there was no malafide intention on part of petitioners to commit any offences with regard to deposits collected from depositors. Complaint has fail on that count - Proper reading of Section 105 of A.P. Reorganization Act shows that if proceeding pending immediately before appointed day in Court of Andhra Pradesh, shall if it a proceeding relating exclusively to territory, which as from that day are territories of state of Telangana, stand transferred to corresponding court of that state. Averments in complaint can be understood to mean that business of petitioners herein was carried on by collecting deposits from both States, hence, said contention does not stand to merit. Complaint against petitioners not for any one such offence but for their acts of collecting deposits from depositors with promise to repay them within a certain period -It is not any one particular act of collection of deposits that is brought to prosecution . Hence, It cannot be said distinct offences are alleged against petitioners. It is only one offence that is alleged i.e. transaction of collection of deposits. Therefore court opines that this case falls under section 220 of Cr.P.C. This is a case where inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. can be exercised for quashing proceedings against petitioners/accused
Result : Quashing proceedings against petitioners/accused allowed. Criminal Petition allowed
ORDER :
1. These two Criminal Petitions, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. are filed by the self same Petitioners/Accused, separately, seeking to quash the order, dated 01.07.2011, passed in Crl. M.P. No. 885 of 2010 (hereinafter referred to as the IA) in C.C. No. 540 of 2008, and also to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 540 of 2008, on the file of the Court of I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad (for short, the trial Court), by virtue of which, the trial Court dismissed the Petition i.e. Crl. M.P. No. 885 of 2010, filed under Sections 218 and 219 of Cr.P.C. seeking to restrict their examination under Section 251 of Cr.P.C. to any three offences either under Section 45S(1)(i) and/or 45S(ii) punishable under Section 58E of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 (For short, the RBI Act).
2. Heard Sri Siddharth Luthra, learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of Sri B. Nalin Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, and learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for the respondent-State.
3. The complaint, which is taken on file as C.C No. 540 of 2008, is filed against M/s. Margadarsi Financiers, showing it as a proprietary concern, and one Sri Ch. Ramoji Rao, seeking for their prosecution under Sections 45S(1)(i) and (ii) and Section 45S(2) of the RBI Act, punishable under Section 58(B)(5A) R/w. Section 58(E) of the RBI Act.
4. The IA shall be taken up first. The grounds on which the order in the IA is challenged are: the Court below (hereinafter referred to as the Court) failed to appreciate that acceptance of individual deposits in violation of Section 45S(1) is made an offence and default in repayment of deposits is made a separate offence under section 45S(1) and 45S(2) as such they cannot be tried at one trial. It erred in relying on Section 220 of Cr.P.C. It failed to appreciate the object of Sections 218 and 219 Cr.P.C. The IA was filed, without prejudice to their right to challenge the maintainability of the said Petition, and the ultimate prayer made in the Petition was to restrict the complaint for trial of any three offences i.e., either under Section 45S(1)(i) and (ii) and 45S(2) of the R.B.I. Act. The grounds on which the said relief is based are that : Under Section 45S(1)(i) of the RBI Act, receipt of any deposit may constitute a separate offence, if the conditions stipulated therein are satisfied by the allegations in the complaint and in the present complaint the allegations are omnibus and bald allegations made without reference to any particular time or details of deposit or depositors; under Section 45S, the deposits are not to be accepted subject to the conditions stipulated therein; whereas under Section 45S(2), the persons who are holding deposits in violation of Section 45S by 01.04.1997 were put under a legal obligation to repay such outstanding deposits as on 01.04.1997; under Section 218 of Cr.P.C. for every distinct offence there shall be a separate charge and every such charge shall be tried separately. However, under Section 219 of Cr.P.C. when a person is accused of more offences than one of the same kind committed within the span of 12 months from the first to the last of such offences, whether in respect of the same person or not, he may be charged with and tried at one trial for any number of them, not exceeding three.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners mainly based his arguments on the purport of Section 218 of Cr.P.C. according to which, a separate charge shall be framed for every distinct offence and Section 219 of Cr.P.C. provides for three offences of same kind within a year may be charged together. But, Section 220 of Cr.P.C. provides for trial for more than one offence, which reads as follows:
"220. Trial for more than one offence:-
(i) If, in one series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction, more offences than one are committed by the same person, he may be charged with, and tried at one trial for every such offence."
6. The complaint is lo
SupremeToday
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
