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

2023 Supreme(AP) 447

ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI
A.V. Ravindra Babu, J.
Quest Net Enterprises Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
State of A. P. – Respondent
Criminal Revision Case No. 969 of 2022
Decided On : 20-02-2023

Advocates appeared:
Posani Venkateswarlu, Advocate, K.V.Aditya Chowdary, Advocate, Y.L.Siva Kalpana Reddy, Advocate

The allegations in the charge sheet would attract the essential ingredients of offences under Ss. 406 and 420 IPC and further Sec. 5 of the APPDFE Act.

Headnote:

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE - CHARGES FRAMED UNDER SECTIONS 406, 420 OF IPC AND SECTION 5 OF APPDFE ACT - CHALLENGE - COURT ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION - RATIO DECIDENDI - FINAL DECISION - MAIN LEGAL POINT - CATEGORY - SUB-CATEGORY

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C. No.11 of 2022 (split up case from Calendar Case No.5 of 2017) on the file of the Court of Principal Sessions Judge-cum-Special Court under APPDFE Act, 1999 Nellore, challenged the order, dtd. 3/8/2022, where under the learned Special Judge, framed charges under Ss. 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), Sec. 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999 (APPDFE Act) and further Sec. 406 IPC against the petitioners.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the allegations in the charge sheet would attract the essential ingredients of offences under Ss. 406 and 420 IPC and further Sec. 5 of the APPDFE Act. The Court also held that the act of the learned Special Judge in framing charges under Ss. 406 and 420 IPC was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. Nallapareddy Sridhar Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, (2020) 12 SCC 467.

Issues: 1. Whether the allegations would attract Sec. 5 of the APPDFE Act? 2. Whether the allegations would attract the essential ingredients of Ss. 406 and 420 IPC? 3. Whether the charges framed against the petitioners are liable to be set-aside?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the allegations in the charge sheet would attract the essential ingredients of offences under Ss. 406 and 420 IPC and further Sec. 5 of the APPDFE Act. 2. The Court also held that the act of the learned Special Judge in framing charges under Ss. 406 and 420 IPC was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. Nallapareddy Sridhar Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, (2020) 12 SCC 467.

Final Decision: The Court dismissed the Criminal Revision Case and directed the learned Special Judge to dispose of C.C. No.11 of 2022 (Split up case from C.C. No.5 of 2017), as expeditiously as possible, preferably not later than six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

JUDGMENT

A.V.RAVINDRA BABU, J. - This Criminal Revision Case came to be filed, under Ss. 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Cr.P.C'), by the petitioners herein, who are the accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C. No.11 of 2022 (split up case from Calendar Case No.5 of 2017) on the file of the Court of Principal Sessions Judgecum-Special Court under APPDFE Act, 1999 Nellore (for short, 'the learned Special Judge'), challenging the order, dtd. 3/8/2022, where under the learned Special Judge, framed charges under Ss. 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'the IPC'), Sec. 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999 (for short, 'the APPDFE Act') and further Sec. 406 IPC against the petitioners.

2. As evident from the copy of charges, enclosed to the grounds of Criminal Revision Case, it appears that the Investigating Agency filed a combined charge sheet pertaining to Crime No.119 of 2008 of IV Town Police Station, Nellore District; Crime No.38 of 2008 of Kuchipudi Police Station, Krishna District; Crime No.156 of 2008 of Kakinada I Town Police Station, East Godavari District; Crime No.186 of 2008 of Kadapa I Town Police Station, Kadapa District and Crime No.75 of 2008 of Ganapavaram Police Station, West Godavari District, pursuant to the orders of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ Petition No.10535 of 2014, dtd. 4/4/2014. The papers pertaining to this Criminal Revision Case are enclosed with the copy of the charge sheet pertaining to C.C. No.5 of 2017.

3. Before going to deal with the Criminal Revision Case, it is pertinent to refer here the case of the prosecution in the above said Calendar Case. The case of the prosecution pertaining to the above five crimes, as set out in the charge sheet, which can be referred here insofar as deciding this Criminal Revision Case concerned, in substance, is that the accused in execution of criminal conspiracy, cheating, misappropriation and violation of the provisions under the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 (for short, 'the PCMCS Act') and APPDFE Act, committed the offences under Ss. 406 and 420 IPC and Sec. 5 of the APPDFE Act.

4. In the year 2001, Dato Vijay Eswaran (A-3), conspired with A-2, A-4 to A-7 to run money circulation scheme in India. In pursuance of their conspiracy, A-2 to A-7 registered a company in Registrar of Companies, Chennai on 18/1/2001 in the name and style of M/s.Gold Quest International Private Limited, in India. Pushpam Appala Naidu (A-2) is the Managing Director. A-3 to A-7 are the Directors. They were running Money Circulation Scheme by collecting deposits. Functioning of the Scheme:

5. Any person can join in this scheme only through an Independent Representative (IR) and there is no direct enrollment in the scheme without introduction of IR. Any person, who wants to join as IR, has to deposit a sum of Rs.460.00 through DD or online to the Company, which is a non-refundable amount. After deposit, IR is provided with ID Number. The company serves a voucher named as Registration Confirmation Receipt. IR has to deposit money through DD or online to avail products of A-1 at an exorbitant price fixed by the Company. On receipt of the deposit, accused issues a voucher called Certificate of Purchase. Accused made the members believe that its products have numismatic and antique value and it would fetch its members several lakhs in future. The accused further induced the members that they could amass wealth depending upon their enrollment of new members down the line and made them to deposit the amounts to avail their products at excessive prices. The various products of the accused company are as follows:

6. Every IR who enrolled two new members into the scheme would earn commission. Newly enrolled members should also deposit Rs.460.00 towards registration and avail products. On completing the two enrollments, IR gets commission of Rs.2, 300.00 a

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 Back to top