Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATI
VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J.
Juturu Venkateswara Ravi Prasad - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh - Respondent
Criminal Petition Nos.1234, 1239, 1242, 1252, 1253, 1258, 1267, 1271, 1273, 1274, 1275, 1278, 1283, 5077, 5079, 5098 AND 5099 of 2021
Decided on : 22-01-2024
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of criminal petitions and facts. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. arguments presented for and against quashing. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. court's determination on vicarious liability. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 4. quashing of proceedings and conclusion. (Para 22 , 23) |
ORDER :
VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J.
These Criminal Petitions are filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973[in short "the Code‟] by the Petitioner who is arrayed as an Accused in a series of C.C.s on the file Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Dharmavaram, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 409 and 420 r/w 34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE ,1860.[In short "IPC‟]
2. The facts leading to filing of the present petitions are thus
a. Respondent No.2 in all these Crl.P.s filed private complaints on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Dharmavaram stating that A.1 is the Company, whereas A.2 is the Managing Director, and A.3 to A.5 are the Directors of A.1-Company.
b. It is stated that A.2 to A.5 professed that it is a reputed business concern having turnover over crores of rupees and they are maintaining in different retail outlets in the name and style of Kalaniketan. All the accused are effectively participating in the promotion and business transactions of the Company. While so, A.2 and A.3 came down to Dharmavaram, and entered into business transactions with the de facto complainant. A.2 to A.5 with dishonest and fraudulent intention to cheat the de facto complainant and other businessmen, induced them to deliver huge quantity of silk sarees.
c. Believing the words that the amount would be processed, the businessmen from Dharmavaram entrusted sarees to A.1-Company. Thereafter, they have cheated the de facto complainant and caused wrongful loss to the de facto complainant. Accused got intention to cheat the de facto complainant from the beginning. It is further stated that the accused are evading payment for the goods supplied by the de facto complainant and thereby cheated the poor and marginal weavers and thereby committed organized crime for the offence punishable under Sections 409 and 420 IPC. Along with the complaint, copies of five invoices and eight debit notes were filed.
d. Learned Magistrate referred the cases to the Police by exercising the power under Section 156(3) of the Code. Police registered the crime for the offences punishable under Sections 409 and 420 r/w 34 I.P.C. After due investigation, Police filed a charge sheet against Accused Nos.1 to 6.
e. Petitioner herein got stay of his arrest, vide Order of this Court dated 08.04.2016 in W.P.M.P.No.18585 of 2016 in W.P.No.14966 of 2016. It is mentioned in the charge sheet that, as per the records, at the time of commission of offence, petitioner was the Additional Director of A.1-Company.
f. For easy understanding, the C.Cs are tabulated hereunder;
| S.No | Criminal Petition No. | C.C.No. | Name of the Complainant | Transaction dates | Appointment Date of the petitioner as an Additional Director | Date of resignation of the petitioner |
| 1 | 1234/21 | 349/18 | M/s. Dasari Silk House | 01.08.14 to 08.04.15 | 29.01.15 | 19.04.16 |
| 2 | 1239/21 | 233/18 | M/s.Ravali Silks | 07.02.15 to 20.04.15 | 29.01.15 | 19.04.16 |
| 3 | 1242/21 | 227/18 | M/s.Dasari Ashok Silks | 05.08.14 to 17.12.14 | 29.01.15 | 19.04.16 |
| 4 | 1252/21 | 232/18 | M/s.Lakshmi Silks | 29.11.14 to 06.02.15 | 29.01.15 | 19.04.16 |
| 5 | 1253/21 | 702/17 | M/s.Omkar Creations | --- | 29.01.15 | 19.04.16 |
| 6 | 1258/21 | 342/18 | M/s.Deepam Manufacture of handloom pure pavadas | 04.08.14 to 15.04.15 | 29.01.15 | 19.04.16 |
| 7 | 1267/21 | 230/18 | M/s.Rajyalaks hmi Hall at Sale | 07.02.15 to 20.04.15 | 29.01.15 | 19.04.16 |
| 8 | 1271/21 | 235/18 | M/s.Ravali Silks at Sale | 11.05.14 to 24.04.15 | 29.01.15 | 19.04.16 |
| 9 | 1273/21 | 315/18 | M/s.Shiridi Sai Sarees | 19.04.15 to 09.05.15 | 29.01.15 | 19.04.16 |
| 10 | 1274/21 | 194/18 | M/s.Krishna Ranga Silks | 17.09.14 to 18.04.15 | 29.01.15 | 19.04.16 |
| 11 | 1275/21 | 229/18 | M/s.Dasari Ashok Silks | 14.04.15 to 05.05.15 | 29.01.15 | 19.04.16 |
| 12 | 1278/21 | 228/18 | M/s.Mamilla Saree Centre | 11.05.14 to 22.04.15 | 29.01.15 | 19.04.16 |
| 13 | 1283/21 | 234/18 | M/s.Ramaiah & Broth | |||
Vicarious liability cannot be imposed on a company's directors under IPC unless there is specific statutory provision; direct involvement must be established.
Vicarious liability cannot be imposed on company Directors without specific statutory provisions; mere designation does not imply culpability without evidence of involvement.
The judgment established the principle that for criminal liability of an officer of a company, there must be sufficient evidence of their active role in the transaction, coupled with criminal intent,....
Point of Law : Escrow agreement – Criminal Breach of Trust and Cheating - Proceedings quashed - Without knowing actual role of petitioners and in what manner they have participated in affairs of comp....
In order to constitute an offence of criminal conspiracy and to attract its rigor, two factors must spring forth from the facts of the case:(i) involvement of more than one person and (ii) an agreeme....
Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage. Quashing of a complaint should rather be an exception and a rarity than an ordinary rule. Considering the allegations made in the c....
Liability under Section 141 of NI Act depends on the role in the conduct of the company's affairs, not just the designation, and the burden of proof lies on the accused to establish lack of knowledge....
Specific averments are necessary to establish the liability of a Director under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act; mere designation is insufficient.
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
