Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
T. Mallikarjuna Rao, J.
The State of Andhra Pradesh - Appellant
Versus
Prathipati Sarath - Respondent
Criminal Revision Case No: 234 of 2024
Decided On : 13-03-2024
Police Custody - Criminal Procedure Code - Sections 397, 401 - 167(3) - 420, 409, 467, 471, 477(A), 120(B) r/w. 34 IPC - 74(1) of CGST Act, 2017 - 132, 134, 137 of Central Goods and Services Act, 2017
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioner sought police custody of A.1, alleging serious economic offenses and fraud amounting to crores, but the learned Magistrate rejected the petition citing lack of merit and substantial grounds.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the denial of police custody was legally correct based on the material presented before the learned Magistrate. It emphasized that the scope of the Revision was limited to the legality of the order refusing police custody.
Issues: The issues revolved around the severity of the offense, necessity for custodial interrogation, and the adequacy of the investigation conducted by DGGI, Hyderabad. The Court also considered the legality and propriety of the findings and order by the learned Magistrate.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized that police custody should be an exception and not a rule, requiring a strong case and judicial scrutiny. It also highlighted the limitations on police custody and the need for strict adherence to statutory provisions.
Final Decision: The Criminal Revision Case was dismissed, and the Order passed by the learned Magistrate was upheld.
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The court emphasized that the grant of police custody should be an exception rather than a rule, requiring a strong case and thorough judicial scrutiny. The statutory provisions and limitations on police custody must be strictly adhered to (!) (!) .
The petitioner/complainant sought police custody of the respondent/A.1, alleging involvement in serious economic offenses, fraud, and misappropriation of large sums of public money. The investigation by authorities such as DGGI had already been conducted, and the Magistrate found that the material did not justify further police custody (!) (!) (!) .
The Magistrate rejected the police custody petition on the grounds that the allegations lacked sufficient merit and that the investigation was already comprehensive. The order was based on the absence of a strong case for custodial interrogation, especially considering the investigation conducted by the DGGI (!) (!) .
The scope of the revision was limited to examining whether the order refusing police custody was legally correct, based on the material before the Magistrate. The court clarified that it would not reassess the facts or evidence in detail at this stage (!) (!) .
The prosecution argued that the severity of the offenses and the necessity for a detailed investigation warranted police custody, especially given the financial nature of the allegations and the short duration of the respondent’s direct involvement in the company. They also highlighted that the investigation by DGGI was confined to specific tax evasion issues, and further custodial interrogation was deemed necessary (!) (!) .
The respondent’s counsel contended that the parties were private entities with no direct contractual relationship with the government, and that the charges under certain sections of IPC and the CGST Act could not be substantiated at this stage. They also argued that the respondent’s involvement was limited and that the investigation had already been conducted extensively by the authorities (!) (!) .
The court noted that the investigation had already covered substantial ground, including examining forged invoices, fake bills, and the diversion of government funds through shell companies. The findings indicated that the investigation was already at an advanced stage, and there was no illegality in the Magistrate’s order refusing police custody (!) (!) .
The court ultimately upheld the Magistrate’s order, dismissing the revision, and confirmed that there was no illegality in the decision not to grant police custody. All pending miscellaneous applications were also closed (!) (!) .
In summary, the court reinforced the principle that police custody should be granted only in exceptional circumstances, with due judicial scrutiny, and found that in this case, the existing investigation was sufficient, and the order refusing police custody was correct and lawful.
ORDER
T. Mallikarjuna Rao, J. - This petition is filed by the Petitioner/Complainant under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., seeking to set aside the Order dated 06.03.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.424 of 2024 in Crime No.63 of 2024 of Machavaram Police Station, Vijayawada City, passed by the learned I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada (for short, 'learned Magistrate').
2. Heard Smt. Y.L. Shivakalpana Reddy, learned Standing Counsel-cum-Special Public Prosecutor, appearing for the Petitioner/Complainant, and Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent/A.1.
3. The Revision Petitioner/Complainant filed a petition under Section 167(3) of Cr.P.C., on behalf of the Prosecution before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, in Crl.M.P.No.424 of 2024 in Crime No.63 of 2024 of Machavaram Police Station, seeking an order granting Police custody of A.1 for ten days, with the following allegations, which are as under:
(i) The Respondent/A.1 was an Additional Director of M/s.Avexa Corporation Pvt. Ltd., whose father is an Ex-Minister in the previous Government, indulged in unethical practices, conspired with the other Accused, who created Shell companies fraudulently, tampered with accounts, submitted forged documents to the Government and committed fraud and caused loss to a tune of Rs.26,25,19,393/- to the State Exchequer and committed serious economical offence by diverting the funds under the guise of developmental works at Amaravati during 2017 to 2022 even though no works were carried out by colluding with other companies and gained illegally Rs.8,00,00,000/-. Based on the report given by the Defacto Complainant, i.e. Deputy Director of Revenue Intelligence, A.P., Vijayawada, a case has been registered for the offences under Sections 420, 409, 467, 471, 477(A), 120(B) r/w. 34 IPC. Later, A.1 was produced by the S.H.O., Machavaram Police Station, before the learned Magistrate on 29.02.2024; after that, he was remanded to judicial custody.
(ii) While A.1 was acting as Additional Director of M/s.Avexa Company, a subcontractor, an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- was transferred from M/s. BSR Infra Tech, who was an original contractor to the Government illegally on 31.01.2020. Abusing the position and influence of his father, A.1 entered into a conspiracy with the companies with a common intention of misappropriating funds which were entrusted to carry out the earmarked work contracts at Amaravati region, created false documents as if certain supplies or services were rendered by filing false invoices without actually doing no such work and diverted huge Government amounts to the companies by using false documents as genuine and by creating false GST accounts and claimed Input Tax Credit to a tune of Rs.8,00,00,000/-. As such, it is necessary to order the Police custody of A.1 to elicit the hidden facts.
4. After considering the arguments presented by both parties, the learned Magistrate rejected the Police custody petition on 06.03.2024, citing that the mere assertions in the petition lacked the adequacy required to authorize Police custody. The rationale behind the dismissal was that the Central GST Department had already completed the entire investigation. According to the learned Magistrate, the petition lacked merit and substantial grounds to warrant the placement of A.1 into Police custody for further questioning. Dissatisfied with this decision, the Petitioner/Complainant has initiated this Revision.
5. It is also established that while considering the legality, propriety or correctness of a finding or a conclusion, normally, the Revisional Court does not dwell at length upon the facts and evidence of the case. A Court, in Revision, considers the material only to satisfy itself about the legality and propriety of the findings, sentence, and order, and it refrains from substituting its conclusion on an elaborate consideration of the evidence.
6. Thus, the scope of the Revision is limited to whether t
AI
The grant of police custody should be an exception and not a rule, requiring a strong case and judicial scrutiny. The court must strictly adhere to statutory provisions and consider the limitations o....
Presumption of innocence, requirement for substantial evidence before arrest, and conditions for granting anticipatory bail highlighted, emphasizing that merely political motives cannot justify unres....
Anticipatory bail may be granted when allegations lack sufficient foundation, and the accused demonstrate willingness to cooperate with investigations while being presumed innocent.
Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course, and summoning an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Specific allegations and a specific role attributed to the accused are n....
A Magistrate must register an FIR if a complaint prima facie discloses a cognizable offence, while also ensuring the legitimacy of the complaint and considering preliminary reports during investigati....
As per Section 154 of Cr.P.C. object of registration of FIR is that every information relating to cognizance of offence whether or given orally or otherwise officer incharge of police station has to ....
Order granting bail must demonstrate application of mind as to why applicant has been granted or denied privilege of bail.
The Magistrate has the power to direct further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC, and such powers can be exercised suo moto as well.
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
