CC.No.01/2020 1 26.03.2024
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, NELLORE
Wednesday, this the 26th day of March, 2024.
Present:- Dr. B. Lakshmi Narayana
Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Nellore.
C.C.No.01/2020
Between:
State Rep., by the Inspector of Police, Crime Investigation Department, RCIU, Tirupathi. …. Complainant
And
1. Joseph Venus S/o.Joseph, aged 55 yrs., Managing Director of Indian Green Glory Services Pvt., Ltd., Luke, Shalom Apart- Ments, Ground Floor No.40, Davis Road, Cooke Town, Bangalore-84.
2. M.Ravichandra S/o.Veera Raghavulu, Aged 32 yrs., Chillakur village of Pellakur Mandal. Now residing at D.No.18-173, Near State Bank of India, Tirupati.
3. M.Yuvaraju S/o.Veera Raghavulu, Chillakur village of Pellakur Mandal. Now residing at D.No.18-173, near State Bank of India, Tirupati.
4. Parlapalli Mallikarjuna Reddy, S/o.Jayarami Reddy, aged 34 years, II Cross Road, Gowtham Nagar, Nellore.
5. Indian Green Glory Services Pvt., Ltd., Bangalore.
Note: The case against A1 & A5 split up and renumbered as CC.No.574/2016
dated 16.09.2016. ... A1 to A5.
This case is coming before me on this day for final hearing in the presence of Additional Public Prosecutor for Complainant and of Sri V.Ranga Rao, learned counsel for A2 & A3, Sri V.Sankara Narayana, learned counsel for A4, Counsel for accused and upon hearing on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
The Inspector of Police, Crime Investigation Department, RCIU,
Tirupathi, filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 5 alleging that
CC.No.01/2020 2 26.03.2024
accused No.1 to 5 committed the offences punishable under Sec.420, 409, 120-
B IPC of Indian Penal Code (herein after it is referred as I.P.C.) and Sec.3, 4, 5 of
A.P. Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes Banning Act, 1979 in Crime
No.178/2000 of V Town Police Station, Nellore.
2. The case of prosecution in nutshell is as follows:-
(i) Prior to 29.09.2000 at Nellore Town, A2 and A3 approached L.W.1-
Syed Habeeb Basha by introducing themselves as promoters of Indian Green
Glory Services Pvt. Ltd., and dishonestly induced him and got enrolled as a member in the scheme at his house and obtained signatures on application forms No.77477-C, gift deed, six demand drafts and finally collected Rs.11,000/ from him by making false promises by canvassing reprehensible formula, which was designed by the company that his investment will be multiply immediately and he will get the amount of Rs.22,000/- and subsequently in many folds viz., silver, pearl, ruby, gold, platinum, diamond and they will get the amount of
Rs.1,96,91,800/-. Further A2 and A3 also made false promises that it is their responsibility to secure four new members to join in the scheme under him for completion of first stage of scheme, since then he neither received any amount from the accused nor company, and finally he was cheated by A2 and A3. Then
L.W.1 had observed the news in the daily newspaper as A2 to A4 cheated so many members in the town under the guise of promoters of Indian Green Glory
Services Pvt., Ltd., by canvassing the scheme designated by the company and collected huge amounts from the investors and absconded. In this connection,
L.W.1 filed a written complaint in V Town police station on 29.09.2000 at 11.30 a.m., and the same was registered as a case in Cr.No.178/2000 under section 420 IPC by L.W.86-C.Vijaya Bhaskar, Sub-Inspector of Police and investigated into. During course of investigation, witnesses were examined and their statements were also recorded.
CC.No.01/2020 3 26.03.2024
(ii) On 20.11.2000 at 2.00 pm., L.W.86-G.Vijaya Byhaskar Rao, Sub- inspector of Police, V Town Police station, Nellore arrested A2 & A3 at the house of B.Leelavathi, Chennai, recorded their confessional statements and seized documents from them. After completing all formalities, L.W.86 produced A2 and A3 before Hon’ble Court, Nellore for remand. Further on 17.02.2001 at 8.00 pm., L.W.86 arrested A4 at 2nd Street, Gowtham Nagar, Podalakur Road, Nellore, recorded his confessional statement and after completing all formalities, L.W.86 produced him before Hon’ble Court, Nellore for remand. During course of investigation, L.W.91-M.Lakshmi Reddy, Deputy Superintendent of Police, CID,
Tirupathi, who conducted investigation send the signatures of A2 and A3 and also LWs.1 and 2 (Syed Habbe Basha & Nallanerla Ragava Rao) to FSL along with sample writings of A2 and A3 and L.Ws.1 and 2, which were taken by the
Hon’ble Court on 15.05.2002 for analysis.
(iii) According to the testimony of witnesses, available seized documentary evidences and opinions of experts, investigation so far made by
CID discloses that the Indian Green Glory Services Pvt. Ltd., is based at
Bangalore and A1-Joseph is the Managing Director and the company has been projected as a Charitable Trust. Prior to 29.09.2000 A2 joined as member in the above said company and entered into an agreement by executing an unregistered Memorandum of Understanding on a stamped paper with A1 and that A2 and A3 also enrolled as senior members in the company. Then A2 to A4 together with malafide intention dishonestly induced the members nearly 150 and got them engrossed as members in the scheme at Nellore and Tirupathi
Town and collected Rs.11,000/- or Rs.11,500/- from each member by making false promises and finally A2 to A4 collected huge amounts from gullible investors at Nellore and Tirupathi Town without furnishing any receipts with the active connivance of A1. Finally the witnesses who invested the amount in the scheme did not receive profits as promised by A1 to A4 and they were cheated
CC.No.01/2020 4 26.03.2024
by accused. Further A1 to A4 willfully and wantonly exploited the procedure for their wrongful gains and their acts deliberately caused wrongful loss to the gullible investors.
(iv) Further the agreement executed in unregistered Memorandum of
Understanding on a stamped paper between A1 and A2 clearly established that
A2 is enrolled as a member in the company/A5 and with active connivance of
A1, A2 to A4 were desecrated the terms and conditions of Indian Green Glory
Services Pvt Ltd, as mentioned in the application and also collected huge amounts from the investors. The documents seized by L.W.86 in pursuance of confessional statements of A1 and A2 from the house of Balaiah at Naidupeta mandal, on 20.11.2000 at 6.00 pm., clearly established that the terms and conditions as mentioned in the applications issued by A1 & A2 to the public and on compared with the terms and conditions as mentioned in bye-laws of Indian
Green Glory Services Pvt., Ltd., are one and the same, but same were violated by the accused in order to unjustly enrich themselves. This fact is also clearly established that with the active support and connivance of A1 to A4 being members of company promoted the company’s scheme into the market and collected huge amounts from the investors at Nellore and some members in
Tirupati and illegally gained the huge mounts from the investors. Therefore, it clearly establishes the involvement of A1 to A4 in commission of offence.
(v) The documentary evidence ie., Memorandum of Understanding between A1 and A2 rightly runs to show that A2 is responsible for distribution of gift DDs/Pay Orders, gift cheques to the respective junior members has been mutually agreed between both the parties, and these terms and conditions in
Memorandum of Understanding were grossly violated by accused, due to which many investors were victimized in the hands of A1 and A2. A1 to A4 being custodians of investor’s money are supposed to act as agents in fiduciary capacity; having been entrusted with the money of the investors have to safe-
CC.No.01/2020 5 26.03.2024
guard the interest of subscribers. But unlike the above, the accused breached the trust of investors and misappropriated their money by playing fraud. A1 to
A4 made a false promise to lure the investors without any intention of performing the same, which in fact almost an impossible task and with that dishonest intention they caused delivery of lakhs of money from the innocent investors, which eventually ended in wrongful loss to the investors. Not only A1 to A4, but also the company under the incorporation of which, the entire fraud is played, due to which the company is also liable though it is an inanimate existence.
(vi) The further investigation established that as per the norms and conditions of the company as mentioned in the application forms issued to the witnesses, it is disclosed that the subscription/membership fees is prescribed
Rs.950/- for the purpose of joining fees, administration charges, which are non- refundable. As per the provisions of A.P. Prize Chits and Money Circulation schemes Banning Act 2(E) the conditions put by accused company in collecting
Rs.950/- for various purposes is clearly attracted and that the accused are liable to be prosecuted under the provisions of above Banning Act. Basing on the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clearly established that A1 to A4 are liable to be prosecuted for the offences punishable under section 420, 409, 120(B)IPC and Sec.3,4,5 of A.P. Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes
Banning Act, 1979.
3. In this case Cr.No.178/2000 registered on the file of V Town Police station, which under jurisdiction of II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nellore, as such the learned the then II Addl.Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Nellore taken on file as C.C.No.789/2013 for the offences punishable under section 420, 409, 120-
B IPC and Sec.3,4,5 of A.P. Prize chits and Money circulation schemes (Banning)
Act, 1978. Subsequently ie., particularly at the time of examination, the learned
Magistrate noticed that as per Sec.9 of A.P. Prize chits and Money circulation
CC.No.01/2020 6 26.03.2024
schemes (Banning) Act, 1978, the Chief Magistrate has exclusive jurisdiction on the offences. Hence, the learned Magistrate addressed letter to the Hon’ble
Principal District Judge, Nellore, who in turn ordered on 29.08.2019 for
withdrawal of C.C.No.789/2013 against A2 to A4 and its split up case
CC.No.574/2016 against A1 & A5 from the file of II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I
Class, Nellore and transferred to this Court. On receipt of the said case,
C.C.No.789/2013 numbered as C.C.No.1/2020 against A2 to A4 and
C.C.No.574/2016 numbered as C.C.No.2/2020 against A1 & A5.
4. Unfortunately, after receipt of record from II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of
I Class, Nellore, the then Presiding Officer proceeded trial without conducting
examination under section 239 Cr.P.C. During trial to substantiate its version, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 61 and got exhibited P1 to P55, and Ex.D1 and Ex.D.2 marked in the cross-examination of P.W.5.
5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused No.2 to 4 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating material elicited against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The accused
No.2 to 4 denied the same and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.
Hence, the defence evidence closed.
6. When this case is coming for judgment, this Court observed the irregularity that A2 to A4 faced trial for the offences punishable under section 420, 409, 120-B IPC and Sec.3,4,5 of A.P. Prize Chits and Money Circulation
Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 without examining them under section 239 Cr.P.C.
Then this Court examined A2 to A4 under section 239 Cr.P.C., explaining the accusation made against them and they denied the same and on hearing the both sides, Charges under Section 420, 409, 120-B IPC and Sec.4 of A.P. Prize chits and Money circulation schemes (Banning) Act, 1978, were framed against
CC.No.01/2020 7 26.03.2024
the accused No.2 to 4, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
7. Both sides counsels reported no other trial as already completed as well as arguments. Hence proceeded.
8. Now the point for determination is :
Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the
accused No.2 to 4 for the offences punishable under
secs. 420, 409, 120-B IPC and Sec.4 of A.P. Prize Chits
and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978
beyond all reasonable doubt ?
9. POINT:- To prove its case the prosecution places reliance on the evidence of PWs.1 to 61 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P55. PW1, who is the defacto complainant deposed that one Ravichandra and M.Yuvaraj represented to him that if he invest Rs.11,000/- in Indian Green Glory Services Pvt. Ltd, he will get double the amount after four other persons were joined along with him, then he paid a sum of Rs.11,000/-. He further deposed that one month after he made the payment, he came to know through a paper publication that the above said
Limited Company closed its business and the persons concerned with the said company left the place, and after seeing the said paper publication, he gave a report in V town Police Station. When A2 to A4 were present in the Court hall,
P.W.1 deposed that he cannot identify the persons who made representation to him to make the deposit due to lapse of time.
10. During cross-examination P.W.1 deposed that he was informed that Indian Green Glory Services Pvt. Ltd is situated in Bangalore and he did not make any enquiries whether such a company is really in existence or not, but he adds that since other persons including Raghava and other constables also started making deposits, he made the deposit and no receipt given to him for the payment of Rs.11,000/-. He further deposed that he came to know through others about Ravichandra and Yuvaraju and he has no direct acquaintance with
CC.No.01/2020 8 26.03.2024
them and the above named persons are not present in the court. He deposed that at that time one Narasaiah was the Superintendent of Police and he also came to know some other big shots also made the deposits in Indian Green
Glory Services Pvt. Ltd, but he cannot say when and to whom he made the payment. He admitted that after Mr. Srinivasulu Reddy, took charge as SP, he gave the complaint. He denied that to protect the police officers who made the deposits he gave the complaint and at the instance of the then SP, Srinivasulu
Reddy, he gave the report to the police. He further denied that he was not examined by the CID police. He admitted that it was represented to him that he will get double the amount if he join four other persons in the scheme.
11. PW.2, who is Secretary of Dileep Nursing School, Nellore deposed that A2 and A3 approached him on behalf of Indian Green Glory
Services Pvt. Ltd, Bangalore requesting him to deposit money under a scheme and accordingly he paid a sum of Rs. 11,000/- in the month of September, 2000 and thereafter in the month of September, 29th, 2000, it was published in several Newspapers that it is a bogus company. Then he approached V Town
Police Station, they examined him and recorded his statement.
12. During cross-examination P.W.2 deposed that he do not remember when police examined him. He admitted that he cannot identity the
A.2 and A.3 and he has stated before police when they examined him as A.2 and
A.3 along with two others approached him. He further admitted that he has stated before police as Superintendent of Police, Additional Superintendent of
Police and Camp Clerk of Superintendent of Police also members in Green Glory
Society. He admitted that he has stated before police as one Babu, who is Camp
Clerk of Superintendent of Police requested him to join Green Glory Society and no receipt issued for an amount of Rs.11,000/- which he has paid. He further admitted that generally he has not paid any amount when a normal person approached him. He deposed that he has stated before police as he paid an
CC.No.01/2020 9 26.03.2024
amount of Rs.11,000/- and he do not remember whether Inspector of Police by name Vijaya Bhaskar requested him to join Green Glory Society. He admitted that he has paid the amount because Superintendent of Police and other police officials are members of the Green Glory Society, particularly request of Babu, who is Camp Clerk of Superintendent of Police. He denied that he has not paid any amount to Green Glory Society.
13. PW.4, the then AR Constable, Nelloredeposed that PW.1 is his colleague and in the year 2000 on one day he noticed two persons speaking with P.W.1 informed that if they pay some amount it will become double within 5 or 6 months and accordingly he paid a sum of Rs.11,500/- to the said persons and later he came to know through Newspapers that Indian Green Glory
Services was closed. He further deposed that he did not pursue it later and he did not remember whether he was examined by CID police or not. He further deposed that he cannot identify the two persons with whom he spoke and paid the amount.
14. During cross-examination P.W.4 deposed that he do not know where Indian Green Glory Services Private Limited is situated and also do not know its Managing Director and Directors and he did not obtain any receipt to show payment of Rs.11,500/-. He denied that he never made any payment a alleged and that he is deposing false.
15. PW.5, the then Police Constable in Nelloredeposed that he came to know about the scheme floated by Indian Green Glory Services Pvt. Ltd as some of his colleagues also joined in the said scheme and that he paid
Rs.11,500/- to A2 and A4. He further deposed that ater he came to know through Newspapers that the said company was closed and he did not pursue about the said scheme or the amount paid by him and subsequently a case was registered against the accused.
CC.No.01/2020 10 26.03.2024
16. During cross-examination P.W.5 deposed that he did not enquire where Indian Green Glory Services Pvt. Ltd is situated or about the Managing
Director or Directors. He further deposed that he did not know where the office is situated and he did not obtain any receipt showing payment of Rs.11,500/- to
A2 or A4 and he know A2 and A4, 10 days prior to making the payment. He further deposed that he do not have prior acquaintance with them and he stated to the police that one Babu Raju asked him to join in the scheme and accordingly he joined the scheme and he did not state to police that on payment of Rs.8500/- by him, he was joined as a member, as in Ex.D.1 and he did not state to police that he came to know that SP and Addl.SP also joined in the said scheme, as in Ex.D.2. He further deposed that he know that under the CCS
Rules no government employee shall in any scheme floated by a company. He denied that he never made any deposit nor he saw A2 or A4 and that he is deposing falsehood. He deposed that now he is under suspension. He denied that as he is in the habit of speaking falsehood he was suspended from service.
He deposed that at that time one Narasaiah was the SP., and after the SP, Sri
Srinivasulu Reddy took charge the case was filed. He denied that to protect the previous SP he is deposing falsehood. He deposed that he do not know how many of his colleagues joined the scheme.
17. PW.6, the retired Sub-Inspector of Police deposed that in the year 2000 he joined a scheme in which he paid Rs.11,500/- and later he came to know that the company which floated the scheme was closed and he did not pursue the same later and police never examined him. The counsels for A2 to
A4 reported no cross-examination.
18. PW.7 the Govt. Teacher deposed that in the year 2000 she joined in a scheme floated by Green Glory Services Pvt. Ltd and paid a sum of
Rs.11,500/- for joining in the scheme and after some time she came to know that the said company was closed and she did not pursue about the same.
CC.No.01/2020 11 26.03.2024
During cross-examination she deposed that she did not obtain any receipt showing payment of Rs.11,500/- from the concerned.
19. PW.9 the then Constable in Nellore II Police Stationdeposed that in or about 1999 two persons approached him for joining in a scheme floated by
Indian Green Glory Services Pvt. Ltd., and basing on their statements, he joined in the scheme by paying a sum of Rs. 11,500/- and after some time he came to know that the said company was closed and he did not get any amount.
Therefore, he did not pursue it and till today he did not get the amount. During cross-examination he deposed that along with himself, his Sub-Inspector of
Police also joined in the scheme and he did not obtain any receipt for making payment of Rs.11,500/- and he do not know where the above said company is located or situated.
20. PW.12 the then S.I., of Police, Nellore II Police Station deposed that in the year 2000, A2 and A3 approached him for joining in a scheme floated by Indian Green Glory Services Pvt. Ltd. lured by their words he joined his wife in the scheme by paying a sum of Rs.11,500/- and subsequently he came to know that the accused absconded and the said money circulation agency was closed and left the place.
21. During cross-examination P.W.12 deposed that he cannot identify
A2 and A3 due to lapse of time and he do not know where the company is situate and he is not having any receipt to show that he paid a sum of
Rs.11,500/- on behalf of his wife. He admitted that at that time one
Mr.Narasaiah was their Superintendent of Police. He deposed that one Babu was his camp clerk. He admitted that the case was registered after Mr. Sriniva sulu Reddy, SP took charge. He denied that he did not pay any amount on behalf of his wife and the wife of his previous SP joined as a member and A2 and A3 never approached him.
CC.No.01/2020 12 26.03.2024
22. PW.15 the then Branch Manager, S.B.I, Korlagunta, Tirupathi deposed that as per the records maintained in the Branch at Korlagunta, A2 is having S.B.Account bearing No. 01190008443 and he made transactions from 18.2.1999. He further deposed that he handed over the original loan opening form of A2 to the concerned police at that time and it pertain to
Tirupathi Main branch and he do not remember whether he was examined by the police or not. During cross-examination he deposed that for opening an
S.B. Account, OVD (Officially valid document) has to be produced by the customer and he has to be introduced by another person at that time.
23. PW.19deposed that he paid a sum of Rs.11,000/- under money circulation scheme and it was not refunded to him. During cross-examination
P.W.19 deposed that he did not state to police as in Ex.P.12. He denied that he is deposing falsehood to help the accused.
24. PW.32 the Deputy Tahsildar, Tirupathi deposed that on 5.2.2008 on being called by the DSP, CID, Tirupati, himself and his VRO went to the CID
Office, and they showed one person to them and in their presence the confessional statement of the said person has been recorded by the DSP and said person disclosed his name as Joseph Veus ie. A1 and he is native of
Krishnagiri of Tamil Nadu and he went to Bengaluru City for completing SSLC and in the year 1970 A1 secured job in the Air Port and retired in the year 1990 and accused started the company, Integrated Indian Green Glory Financial
Services Pvt. Ltd, in Pondichery and subsequently the word ‘Integrated’ was removed and it was renamed as Indian Green Glory Financial Services Pvt. Ltd.
Later on the word ‘financial’ was also removed and the firm was established in the year 1999 at Bangalore. The accused recruited 7 members for the said company and introduced a money circulation scheme and accused got printed the application forms for the said scheme in R.N.Printers, Bengaluru and kept the same with him. After recording his statement, the signatures of himself
CC.No.01/2020 13 26.03.2024
and the VRA were obtained on the mediator cum confessional statement of
A1. He further deposed that on the next day he along with Hanumantha Rao, another mediator and CID police went to Bengaluru to the office of the firm,
Chartered Accountant Office, Syndicate Bank and printer where the applications were got printed and except in Syndicate Bank no persons were present in other offices and the Bank Manager was approached to get the bank statement who informed that the documents were already handed over to CID officials and for that purpose another mediator’s report was recorded. The learned counsel for A2 to A4 reported no cross-examination.
25. PW.36 the Branch Manager, APGP Bank (previously Pinakini
Grameena Bank) Stonehousepet, Nellore deposed that on verification in the office, no records pertaining to this case are available as they are more than 20 years old. The learned counsel for A2 to A4 reported no cross-examination.
26. PW.37 the Officer, PNB, Nellore deposed that their bank is not having any record pertaining to Ac.9903 of you A2 as it is more than 20 years old. The learned counsel for A2 to A4 reported no cross-examination.
27. PW.38 the practicing Advocate at Nellore deposed that A.1 have conducted a meeting at stonehousepet, Nellore propagating about his charitable objectives and giving helping hand to the poor out of the scheme floated by him and being attracted by the scheme himself and his daughter joined by paying a sum of Rs.28,000/- and odd and the said amount was deposited to the account of the firm (A.5), and at the time of meeting a sum of
Rs.1 lakh was donated to the hospital swallows at stonehousepet and later he came to know that some disturbances occurred. The learned counsel for A2 to
A4 reported no cross-examination.
28. PW.43 the Branch Manager, Andhra Bank, Stonehousepet, Nellore deposed that he do not know who worked as Manager, Andhra Bank,
Stonehousepet at the relevant point of time. He further deposed that on
CC.No.01/2020 14 26.03.2024
verification in the office, no record is available with regard to pay order
No.238570 dt.22.5.2003 of Pinakini Grameena Bank, Nellore from A.3. The learned counsel for A2 to A4 reported no cross-examination.
29. PW.44 the Senior Manager, Canara Bank, Nellore Main Branch deposed that in the year 2003 one S.R.Nagaraju was the Manager and no data is available as to where at present is working or he is in service or not. He further deposed that on verification in the office, no record is available with regard to pay Order No.238535 of Pinakini Grameena Bank, Nellore of A.2 and
A.3. The defence counsel reported no cross-examination.
30. PW.46deposed that he know A.1 and he paid a sum of
Rs.60,000/- to him on 3.8.1998 for money circulation scheme by means of a cheque. He further deposed that he filed a case against accused under NI Act and recovered the said amount from him on 6.11.2003 and he do not know about other accused in this case. The defence counsel reported no cross- examination.
31. PW.47 the Senior Manager, TMB, Nellore deposed that one
G.Rajendran was the Manager at the relevant point of time, who is no more and hence, he has come to give evidence based on the record. He further deposed that the record pertaining to Draft No.NLE/292/889659 are not available in their office as they are more than 20 years old. The defence counsel reported no cross-examination.
32. PW.48 the retired VROdeposed that at the relevant point of time in November, 2000, he was working as V.R.O, Bujabuja Nellore and he do not know A2 or A3 and he cannot identify any of the accused. He further deposed that on being called by the SI of Police, V Town PS, he went to the police station and on his request he signed on some written documents and at that time he was informed that they are arresting two persons. He further deposed that he was no personally present at the time of arrest of said two
CC.No.01/2020 15 26.03.2024
persons and he do not know about the other facts of the case. The learned counsel for accused reported no cross-examination.
33. PW.49 Examiner of Accounts, GHMC, Hyderabad deposed that this case was referred to him by the office of ADDL. DGP, CID, AP, and
Hyderabad and important documents were not produced by the CID Officials.
He further deposed that the receipts issued by accused are not produced by the CID and all the transactions were made on cash basis and basing on the record produced before him, he issued Audi report. During cross-examination he deposed that along with him one Y.Prasad Rao and T.Padmavathi assisted him at the time of audit and A5 is a company registered under Companies Act.
34. PW.50 the retired Chief Commissioner, Income Tax, International
Taxes, Bangalore deposed that as range head he was asked to furnish the details asked by his Commissioner and accordingly he furnished the information of M/s. Indian Green Glory Services Pvt. Ltd. Bangalore to Inspector of Police CID, Tirupathi. The learned counsel for accused reported no cross- examination.
35. PW.52 the retired Deputy Superintendent of Policedeposed that on 12.5.2005 he has deputed P.C.2744 to Hyderabad, FSL to find out whether the FSL report ready or not and then the PC visited the FSL and stated that the reports were not ready. He further deposed that on 4.6.2005 he handed over the CD file to CI, V.V.Naidu as he was transferred to SDPO, Kadiri. The learned counsel for accused reported no cross-examination.
36. PW.53 the retired Deputy Superintendent of Policedeposed that during that period on 21.2.2008, he examined and recorded the statements of
P.Ws. 20 and 46. During cross-examination he denied that he never examined the above witnesses and that the said statements were prepared in their office.
CC.No.01/2020 16 26.03.2024
37. PW.54 the retired Additional Superintendent of Policedeposed that he examined and recorded the statements of P.Ws.41, 33 on 20.10.2010. He further deposed that on 24.12.2010 he examined and recorded the statements of P.Ws.42, 34 and 35. During cross-examination he denied that he never examined the above witnesses and that the said statements were prepared in their office.
38. PW.55 the retired Deputy Superintendent of Police deposed that while he was working in CID, Tirupathi, he took up investigation in Cr.No.178 of 2000 of V Town Nellore Police station and during course of investigation, he secured the presence of B.Sukumar (L.W.60), P.W.19, R.Kishore Kumar Reddy (L.W.62), P.W.21, P.W.22 and P.W.14 and recorded their statements under
Sec.161 Cr.P.C. He further deposed that on 03.11.2007 he has sent a letter to
Registrar of Companies, Bangalore, Karnataka State with a request to furnish certified copies of the letter given by MD, GGS, Bangalore to the Registrar
Companies, for change of company’s name and Special Resolution passed on 08.08.2000, Fresh certificate consequent on change of name issued on 17.08.2000, list of members of Indian Green Glory Services Pvt. Ltd.,
Bangalore, including office bearers, audit report/expenditure report of the company submitted to the Registrar of companies, Bangalore, letter with seal intimating the names of MD and Board of Directors of the Company prior and after change of name of the company.
39. P.W.55 further deposed that on 23.11.2007, the S.I., Govindaraju, and PC.2744 were deputed to Bangalore for collection of above documents from the Registrar companies and a letter was also given on 24.11.2007 to the
MD, Green Glory Services requesting to send Registration Certificate of the company and he stated in his reply that his company was originally registered on 19.04.1995 at Union Territory of Pondicherry with CIN
No.9999Y1995SPDC001079 as per the computer data and again he sent a
CC.No.01/2020 17 26.03.2024
letter to the Union Territory of Pondicherry to furnish the details of the above
CIN No. He further deposed that on 30.01.2008 he sent Mr Nadeem Basha,
Inspector of Police, CID, Tirupati to Bangalore for apprehension of the A1,
Joseph Venus and on the same day, the said Inspector arrested the accused and produced before him at his office at Tirupati at 10.00 pm., with a special report addressed to him and later the accused is sent to Nellore with remand report to the concerned Court ie., II A.J.M.F.C. Nellore upon which the accused is remanded to judicial custody. On 01.02.2008 a memo was filed before II
A.J.M.F.C, Nellore requesting to give four days police custody for further investigation and on the said requisition, orders were passed giving police custody for four days. He further deposed that on 04.02.2008 during the interrogation time, he prepared his confessional statement in the presence of mediators, S.Hanumantha Rao and M.Ashok Reddy (L.W.75 and P.W.31) and drafted a mediator’s report. He further deposed that after recording the confessional statement of accused, he is sent back to judicial custody on 07.02.2008, and the mediator’s reports and confessional statements were recorded on 05.02.2008 and 06.02.2008 and not 04.02.2008 and it is a mistake, and his successor took up further investigation.
40. During cross-examination P.W.55 deposed that during his tenure he did not receive the Registration Certificates of the old company or the new company. He admitted that the name of the other accused were not disclosed in any of the mediators report, Ex.P.38 to Ex.P.41. He denied that the investigation is table made and that A1 never made any such statements
before him.
41. PW.56 the then Inspector of Police, CID, Tirupathi deposed that on 04.06.2003 he received memo vide C.No.4008/C/27/CID 2000 dated 08.05.2003 to take up investigation in this case and he secured CD file from the I.O. and secured a copy of expert opinion vide file Doc.93/2003 dated
CC.No.01/2020 18 26.03.2024
07.04.2003, and on 25.06.2003 he examined P.W.17 and P.W.45 and recorded their statements. He further deposed that on 02.08.2003 he gave a requisition to Branch Manager, Pinakini Grameena Bank, Nellore with a request to furnish the particulars of addresses of the members, who encashed D.Ds/pay orders of
Pinakini Grameena Bank. He further deposed that on 14.8.2003, he gave requisition to SBI, Korlagunta Branch, Tirupati and Tilak Road, Tirupati and SB of Hyderabad, Mosque Road, Tirupati, to furnish account statements of
Ravichandra Raju and Yuva Raju and Veeraswamy. He further deposed that on 24.08.2003, he received reply from Chief Manager, SBI, Tilak Road, Tirupati stating that account Nos.0119000 and 0117304 belong to Ravindra Raju and that cheque book Nos.922701 to 922720, 923841 to 928360 and 917053 to 917060 were issued to Ravichandra Raju and another account No.0117306 pertains to Yuvaraju and that cheque books bearing Nos.922681 to 922700, 925101 to 925120 were issued to him, and that 0117441 belongs to
M.Veeraswamy and that cheque books bearing Nos.925061 to 925080 was issued to him.
42. PW.56 furtherdeposed that on 26.08.2003, he received reply from the Manager, SBI, Tilak Road, Tirupati stating that the bankers cheque bearing No.573010 for Rs.450/- was issued in the name of Madana Mohan
Reddy and another bankers cheque No.573112 for Rs.1,000/- was issued in the name of K.Venugopal Raju. He further deposed that on 02.09.2003 he received reply from Manager, Pinakini Grameena Bank, Nellore stating that they have issued only pay orders not DDs which are presented in the local banks for clearance. He deposed that on 08.09.2003 he gave a requisition to SBI, Tilak
Road, Tirupathi with a request to furnish the particulars of addresses with whom the accused made transactions and on 10.09.2003 he submitted a letter of advice along with covering letter addressing the Hon’ble Court with a request to forward to the handwriting expert for comparison and report. He
CC.No.01/2020 19 26.03.2024
further deposed that on 01.11.2003 he handed over the case file to A.K.Dubey,
DSP for further investigation in obedience to the instruction of the Addl. D.G.P on 22.10.2003 and also on 15.03.2005 while he was holding Addl. Charge as
DSP, CID, Tirupati, he prepared a letter of advice regarding 10 pay orders and submitted to the Court along with letter of advice for examination and report.
He further deposed that P.W.17 and P.W.45 stated before him as in Ex.P.10 and
Ex.P.33 respectively.
43. During cross-examination P.W.56 deposed that he is not having the entire C.D. file while giving evidence, but he adds that he is having the relevant papers with him from the C.D. file. He admitted that he brought the relevant papers with regard to the investigation done by him. He denied that
Ex.P.42 to Ex.P.44 were created for the purpose of the case. He denied that the statements of P.Ws.17 and 45 were not recorded and that they were prepared in the police station. He deposed that he did not seize any passbooks with regard to the account numbers mentioned in the chief examination and he did not verify the cheque issue register with regard to the issuance of the cheques. He deposed that he did not peruse the pay orders, but he adds that he addressed the concerned bank to give the addresses of the person in whose name the pay orders were issued. He denied that the investigation is table made and to implicate the accused a false investigation was made.
44. PW.57 the then S.I., of Police, V Town P.S., deposed that on 29.09.2000 at about 11.30 a.m., while he was in police station, one Habeeb
Basha/P.W.1 came to him and presented written report and basing on the report of P.W.1, he registered a case in Cr.No.178/2000 for the offence under section 420 IPC and during course of investigation, he examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. He further deposed that on 20.11.2000 he received credible information about accused and secured P.W.47 and L.W.74-
CC.No.01/2020 20 26.03.2024
P.Kondareddy and proceeded to Chennai along with his staff to the house of
B.Leelavathi, where he secured A2 and A3, examined them and recorded their confessional statements and on their information, they all together reached
Naidupeta to the house of Malli Balaiah, who is paternal junior uncle of A2 and
A3, where accused went to the house of Balaiah and returned to them with a black colour suit case and opened in their presence by showing application forms (7) in number. He further seized nine bank passbooks under mahazarnama and also seized four demand drafts, three cheque books issued by Panjab National Bank, two papers which shows the payments of various persons, three accounts books maintained by accused about their transactions and three sky biz books maintained by accused. Thereafter, he arrested A2 and A3 and produced them before II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nellore for judicial remand. He further deposed that on 17.02.2011 he arrested A4 in his house at Gothamreddy Nagar, Podalakur road, Nellore, examined him and recorded his confessional statement and thereafter, he produced A4 before II
Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Nellore for judicial remand. He further deposed that on 11.03.2001 he has received orders of Superintendent of
Police, who directed him to handover the case file to the Crime Investigation
Division and accordingly, he transmitted the entire case file and properties seized in this case to CID, Nellore.
45. During cross-examination P.W.57 admitted that PW.1 is resident of Mulapet and Mulapet area is under Territorial Jurisdiction of I Town Police
Station and A.1 company has no office within territorial Jurisdiction of V Town
Police Station. He further admitted that at the time of registration of present case crime one Srinivasa Reddy is working as Superintendent of Police for
Nellore District, and PW.1 & PW.4 were worked as a Gun Mens with the then
Superintendent of Police by name C.V.Narasaiah. He further admitted that as per statement of PW.1, Superintendent of Police, Additional Superintendent of
CC.No.01/2020 21 26.03.2024
Police and Camp Clerk Babu are promoters of A.1 company, and as per statements of PW.1 and PW.4 the alleged offence was taken at the time of
C.V.Narasaiah and the wife of C.V.Narasaiah by name Lakshmi Rajyam also one of the promoter for A.1 company and some of police officials were also promoters of A.1 company. He further admitted that on his examination no one stated same maturity amount on paid the some amount. He admitted that the then M.L.A by name M.Sridhar Krishna Reddy is also one of the promoter for A.1 company, and apart from above said persons several other persons also promoters of A.1 company and during his investigation not seized any cash in this case and no Government servant stood as a promoter or member of any scheme like A.1 company. He further admitted that his investigation has not reveals about company officials like General Manager,
Manager, Director etc.,. and A.1 company head office is situated at Bangalore and during his investigation he never visited head office of A.1 company.
46. He admitted that PW.5 stated before him as in Ex.D.1 and
Ex.D.2 and Superintendent of Police instructions and permission necessary to arrest the accused in another state, but he volunteers he has obtained oral permissions. He denied that they have to give details to local police persons to arrest the accused in other state. He admitted that they directly went to the house, where he has taken the custody of A.2 and A.3. He deposed that generally only one time arrest the accused in same crime. He admitted that they have not mentioned door number of Leelavathi, where they have taken custody of A.2 and A.3. He deposed that he has not obtained any search warrant to search the house of Leelavathi. He admitted that he has not examined Leelavathi, and except mediator report, he has no other proof as he arrested the A.2 and A.3 at Chennai. He deposed that he has not secured any person either at Chennai or Naidupeta to act as mediators, and he has not obtained any permission from Tahsildar’s either at Chennai or Naidupeta. He
CC.No.01/2020 22 26.03.2024
further admitted that he has no proof as issued receipt to accused on seized the documents from A.2 and A.3, and either mediator’s reports or arrest
Mahazarnamas has no description of mediators except their signatures after the proceedings. He admitted that during his investigation he has not mentioned registration details of A.1 company, and he has not produced the black color suitcase allegedly produced before him and opened through A.2 and A.3. He deposed that he has not seized the black color suitcase except documents handed over the A.2 and A.3 and he has not obtained the signatures of A.2 and A.3 on seized documents.
47. He further admitted that the seven applications i.e., Ex.P.47 has no signatures of A.2 and A.3. He deposed that during his investigation, he has addressed letters to Banks but not received any reply. He admitted that who were induced another all those are nothing but accused. He denied that the mediators are stock witnesses to his police station, and he has showed the accused in this case after deleted the original culprits on the instructions of
Srinivasa Reddy, the then Superintendent of Police and A.2 and A.3 has no involvement in the alleged offence and he has prepared all the documents at his police station by conducting table investigation. He admitted that A.4 name not in First Information Report. He deposed that he has not verified documents with companies of Registrar after seized from A.2 and A.3 and he has not seized anything, when arrested the A.4. He admitted that his wife by name C.Kavitha listed as witness in this case at LW.53. He denied that his wife being a promoter get join the number of persons and they are un-necessarily implicated the A.4 in this case without his involvement.
48. PW.58 the retired Additional Superintendent of Policedeposed that on 07.05.2006 he has taken case file in this case from his predecessor by name P.S.Rama Murthy (LW.97) and after verified the case file and found on proper lines. He further deposed that on 09.06.2006 he has send a letter to
CC.No.01/2020 23 26.03.2024
Bank Manager, Syndicate Bank, Contonment Branch, Bangalore by seeking records for account No.2486 pertaining to Green Glory Service Private Limited,
Bangalore from 1997 to 2000 and he has send the letter through his Sub- inspector of police by name Govinda Raju. He deposed that on 11.06.2006, he received information through his Sub-Inspector of Police that what information they sought said records were destroyed not only paper, but also Computer Disk and on 13.07.2006, he met Deputy Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad, to get the documents and objects seized by them in Crime No.341/1999, who in turn informed record not available. He further deposed that on 15.07.2006 he has addressed a letter to General Manager, Syndicate Bank, Bangalore pertaining to cheque and accused other transactions, and on 19.07.2006 he has received copies of Ledgers of account of Green Glory Private Limited from Syndicate Bank excepts for the months of April 1998, September 1998, January 1999 and July 1999 and he has tallied your cheque book with ledgers copies, which are not tallied. He deposed that on 02.08.2006, he deputed Head Constable No.1437 to met Deputy commissioner of Police, Detective Department, Hyderabad, to get
Hard Disk, which was seized by them in Crime No.341/1999 and on 16.08.2006, he has received cheque books No.9903, 9904 containing leaves bearing
No.668621 to 668630 and 669611 to 669620 of Punjab National Bank, Nellore
Branch, Nellore and he has verified the above cheques with ledgers furnished by
Syndicate Bank, Bangalore and he has found the above cheques not having any transactions pertaining to Green Glory Private Limited. He further deposed that on 19.08.2006, Final Appreciation Report submitted to Additional General Of
Police, Crime Investigation Department, Hyderabad, and thereafter, he has transferred as such he entrusted case file to his Successor.
49. During cross-examination P.W.58 admitted that he has not visited personally to verify the accounts of Green Glory Private Limited, but he volunteers because his predecessor in investigation already visited Green Glory
CC.No.01/2020 24 26.03.2024
Private Limited. He deposed that the same was informed orally. He admitted that he has not verified company promoters and acting managers, and he has investigated regarding Green Glory Private Limited transactions with bank. He deposed that the Crime No.341/1999 was on the file of City Crime Police Station,
Detective Department, Hyderabad. He denied that Detective Department has no power of registration of First Information and he has not conducted any investigation as deposed in his examination in chief and prepared a case files at their police station for name sake. He admitted that banks handed over cheque books to its customers.
50. PW.59 the then D.S.P., CID, Regional Office, Tirupathideposed that on 24.01.2011 he has taken case diary from his predecessor by name
Ch.Venkateswara Rao (P.W.54), on verification found on proper lines. He further deposed that on 15.04.2011 he has received final application report (FAR) from legal adviser and thereafter, he handed over case diary to his successor by name Mallikarjuna (L.W.107). The learned counsel for accused reported no cross-examination.
51. PW.60 the retired Deputy Superintendent of Police deposed that he has taken case diary from his predecessor in office i.e., K. Srinivasa Gopal (LW103) and found on proper line of investigation in this case. He further deposed that on 22-04-2010 he visited Hyderabad and met the Vyjayanthi
Madam/Asst law officer at CBCID, Hyderabad head office and sought proper advice in this case record and during his period, he has not received any suggestion or advice from the above said madam. He further deposed that on 17-05-2010 he handover case diary to his successor by name CH.
Venkateswarrao(PW54). The learned counsel for accused reported no cross- examination.
52. PW.61 the then Inspector of Police, CID, Tirupathi deposed that after he assumed the charge from his predecessor by name M.V.S.Swamy
CC.No.01/2020 25 26.03.2024
(P.W.59) verified this case record and found on correct lines. After he satisfied, he has filed the chargesheet in this case. During cross-examination he deposed that he do not know whether most of the family members of Investigating
Officers of this case are in scheme of the case. He further deposed that he do not know as no fact established under investigation whether Superintendent of
Police and his camp clerk involved in disputed scheme or not. He admitted that as per law, if any person gained on induced some person is liable for punishment. He admitted that as per witnesses statements in this case, most of the witnesses joined under inducement as well they induced others, and the organization under this dispute has its Head office at Bangalore. He deposed that there is no branch office at Nellore and this Court is having jurisdiction as per his knowledge as case was registered by V Town police station, Nellore. He denied that he has filed the chargesheet without verifying he case record by implicating the accused in this case and leaving the real culprits. He denied that he has not shown the departmental persons as accused, though they involved in the case and the Superintendent of Police’s wife by name
Rajyalakshmi induced several persons to join as a members, but we have not shown her as accused in this case. He admitted that as per the statements of witnesses, they have not corroborated with each other regarding the amount of deposit in scheme. He denied that their investigation was taken with bias and filed chargesheet.
53. POINT:
The prosecution in this case cited as many as 107 witnesses, out of them prosecution examined 61 witnesses on prosecution side. Out of 61 evidences,
P.Ws.3, 6, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16 to 31, 33 to 37, 39 to 48 and 51 are turned hostile to the case of prosecution and they have not deposed anything against
A2 to A4. As such the above said witnesses’ evidence no way helpful to the case of prosecution to establish either of the offences which faced by the
CC.No.01/2020 26 26.03.2024
accused. After discarded above said witnesses, the only remaining witnesses
P.W.1 who is defacto complainant, P.Ws.2, 4, 5, 7,9, 12,15, 32, 38, 48, 49, 50, who are independent witnesses testified against accused and in favour of prosecution case and rest of remaining witnesses i.e., P.Ws.52 to 61 are nothing but Investigating Officers, who participated to investigate the case.
54. Out of charges framed against A2 to A4, now we have to observe
Section 409 of IPC, which read as follows:
Sec.409: Criminal breach of trust by public servant, or by banker,
merchant or agent:-
Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property in his capacity or a public servant, or in the way of his business as a banker, merchant, factor, broker, attorney or agent, commits criminal breach of trust in respect of that property, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
55. As per the above said provision, who ever being in any manner entrusted with property or with any dominion over property in his capacity of a public servant or in the way of his business as a banker, merchant, factor, broker, attorney or agent, commit breach of trust is punishable under section 409 IPC. In this regard, the criminal of breach of trust defined under section 405
IPC, which read as follows:
Sec.405. Criminal breach of trust:Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express, or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or willfully suffers any other person so to do, commits” criminal breach of trust’.
56. Here as per prosecution allegations, A2 to A4 are promoters of
Indian Green Glory Services Pvt. Ltd., at Nellore. Therefore, if any criminal breach of trust has been done by these accused, the Indian Green Glory
CC.No.01/2020 27 26.03.2024
Services Pvt. Ltd., has cause of action to proceed against A2 to A4 by establishing the work entrusted to promote said company. But here how the prosecution made accusation against A2 to A4 under section 409 of IPC has no explanation. Even if we taken that these A2 to A4 collected the amounts from the public or witnesses in this case by floating the financial scheme belongs to
Indian Green Glory Services Pvt. Ltd., for that either the public or the witnesses under this case has not entrusted with any property or dominion over the property or whatsoever, the Section 405 of IPC defined for the criminal breach of trust. Moreover, no witnesses from PW.1, P.W.2, P.W.4, P.W.5, PW.7, P.W.9, P.W.12,
P.W.15, P.W.38 has not made any accusation against the accused 2 to 4 as out of their inducement of A2 to A4, invested any amount in Indian Green Glory
Services Pvt. Ltd. As such this Court not find any charge against the accused 2 to 4 for the offence under section 409 of IPC.
57. Before going to discuss for the offences under section 120-B of
IPC and Sec.420 IPC, it is just and necessary to observe how far prosecution is able to establish the case under section 4 of A.P. Prize Chits and Money
Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978. In this regard, the prosecution filed chargesheet against A2 to A4 for the offences punishable under section 3,4,5 of
A.P. Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978. But we have already observed supra, the prosecution in its chargesheet clearly alleged that A2 to A4 are promoters of Indian Green Glory Services Pvt. Ltd., As such by accusation made against A2 to A4 are only under section 4 of A.P. Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978. According to Sec.3 of A.P.
Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978, whoever contravenes this section shall be punishable under section 4 of A.P. Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978. Therefore, it is just and necessary to observe Sec.3 and 4 of A.P. Prize Chits and Money Circulation
Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978, which are as follows:
CC.No.01/2020 28 26.03.2024
Sec. 3 of A.P. Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 :
Banning of prize chit and money circulation schemes or enrolment as members or participation therein. No person shall promote or conduct any prize chit or money circulation scheme, or enrol as a member to any such chit or scheme, or participate in it otherwise, or receive or remit any money in pursuance of such chit or scheme.
Sec.4 Penalty for contravening the provisions of Section 3:- Whoever contravenes the provisions of Section 3 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both; Provided that in the absence of special and adequate reasons to the contrary to be mentioned in the judgment of the Court, the imprisonment shall not be less than one year and the fine shall not be less than one thousand rupees.
58. P.W.57 ie., Investigating Officer registered the crime as 178/2000 basing on the report of P.W.1. In this regard, we have to observe evidence of
P.W.1, who is defacto complainant in this case, clearly and categorically testified that he do not know A2 and A3, but one Raghavendra and M.Yuvaraj represented to him that if he invest Rs.11,000/- in Indian Green Glory Services
Pvt. Ltd.,, he will get double of the amount after four persons joined along with him and on the said representation, he paid a sum of Rs.11,000/-, but subsequently came to know through paper publication that above said company closed its business, so that gave a report to V Town police station. His report marked as Ex.P.1. He further testified that he cannot identify the persons who made representation to him due to lapse of time, in spite of A2 to A4 present in
Court hall. In his cross-examination, he testified that he did not make any enquiries whether such a company is really in existence or not by the time he voluntarily added since other persons including Raghava and other constables also started making deposits, he made the deposit. When we considered the above said evidence, this P.W.1 actually has no acquaintance with either A2 or
A3, because he not identified A2 and A3 in spite of appear before the Court and also beginning itself he testified that he do not know A2 and A3. When he was questioned about enquiries taken in respect of Indian Green Glory Services Pvt.
CC.No.01/2020 29 26.03.2024
Ltd., he testified that since other persons including Raghava and other constables started making deposits, he made the deposit, this particular words clearly and categorically establishing either A2 or A3 not made any influence of
P.W.1, because this P.W.1 influenced by the actions of either Raghava or other constables, who started making deposits and provoked this P.W1 to make a payment. Moreover, this P.W.1 clearly and categorically testified that he has no receipt for payment of Rs.11,000/-.
59. Admittedly, P.W.57 also clearly and clearly testified that he has not collected any payment receipts. As such the evidence of P.W.1 not establishing any payment as well as inducement on the side of A2 and A3 to make P.W.1 to pay the amount of Rs.11,000/-. In this regard, in cross-examination of P.W.57, he admitted that P.W.1 is resident of Mulapet, which is under territorial jurisdiction of I Town Police station, but not V Town Police station. He also admitted that P.W.1 and P.W.4 worked as gunmen of the then Superintendent of
Police by name C.V.Narasaiah. He also admitted that as per the statement of
P.W.1, Superintendent of Police, Additional Superintendent of Police, Camp clerk of Superintendent of Police by name Babu are promoters of A1 company. He also admitted that the then Superintendent of Police C.V.Narasaiah’s wife by name Lakshmi Rajyam also one of the promoter for A1 company. He also admitted that some of the police officials were promoters of A1 company. Now we have to observe the evidence of P.W.4, who testified that at the relevant point of time he worked as A.R. Constable in Nellore. He further testified that though he heard about the names of accused, but he did not know the accused.
He further deposed that P.W.1 is his colleague and in the year 2000 on one day he noticed two persons speaking with PW.1, on that he joined and spoken, at that time the persons who were speaking with P.W.1 informed that if they pay some amount it will become double within five or six months. Therefore, he paid a sum of Rs.11,500/-. In his cross-examination he deposed that he do not
CC.No.01/2020 30 26.03.2024
know its Managing Director or Directors as well as not obtained any receipt to show the payment of Rs.11,500/-. When we considered the evidence of PW.1,
P.W.4, this P.W.1 and P.W.4 are nothing but worked as gunmen for
Superintendent of Police at the relevant point of this case by name
C.V.Narasaiah. P.W.4 clearly and categorically testified that though he heard the names of accused, but he do not know the accused. P.W.57 clearly and categorically testified that P.W.1 stated before him that some of police officials like Superintendent of Police, wife of Superintendent of Police, Additional
Superintendent of Police, Deputy Superintendent of Police and camp clerk by name Babu are promoters of Indian Green Glory Services Pvt. Ltd.,. But in this case no police person showed as accused in spite of admitted by PW.57, for that best reasons known to him only. Moreover, as per the evidence of P.W.1 and
P.W.4, they do not know accused, just heard the names of accused, but they were influenced by the actions of their superior police officers like
Superintendent of Police, wife of Superintendent of Police and other police officials. On considered the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.4, the prosecution not in a position to establish that A2 to A4 either promoters of Indian Green Glory
Services Pvt. Ltd., are influenced the P.W.1 and P.W.4 to make any payments to the accused.
60. P.W.2 is a person working as Secretary and correspondent of Dileep
Nursing School for the last 23 years. He deposed that he know the accused 2 and 3 as they approached him on behalf of Indian Green Glory Services Pvt. Ltd., and requested him to deposit money under scheme, so that he paid an amount of Rs.11,000/- in the month of September, 2000. Subsequently, on 29.09.2000 it was published in several newspapers that it is bogus company. In his cross- examination he admitted that he cannot identify A2 and A3. He also admitted that he stated before police when they examined A2 and A3 along with two persons approached. He further admitted that he has stated Superintendent of
CC.No.01/2020 31 26.03.2024
Police, Additional Superintendent of Police and camp clerk of Superintendent of
Police also members in Indian Green Glory society. He further testified that he made payment to the Indian Green Glory Services Pvt. Ltd., on the request of camp clerk of Superintendent of Police by name Babu and no receipt was issued for his payment. He also admitted that he paid the amount because of
Superintendent of Police and other police officials are members of Indian Green
Glory Services Pvt. Ltd., particularly on request of Babu. Therefore, P.W.2 evidence also not establishing that he made payment as promise made by A2 to
A4. P.W.2 was influenced to pay the amount due to police official particularly camp clerk of Superintendent of Police by name Babu. P.W.5 is also a constable at the relevant time of case. He testified that he do not know PW.1 and P.W.4, who are gunmen of the then Superintendent of Police particularly at relevant time of the case. He further testified that in the year 2000 he came to circle office, Nellore from Nellore I Town, at that time he came to know the scheme floated by Indian Green Glory Services Pvt. Ltd., and also came to know his colleagues also joined in the scheme, on that paid an amount of Rs.11,500/- to
A2 and A4. In his cross-examination he admitted that he did not obtain any receipt showing payment of Rs.11,500/- to A2 and A4. He further admitted that he stated before police, one Babu Raju asked him to join in the scheme, accordingly he joined in the scheme. He further testified that he did not state
before police that on payment of Rs.8,500/- he joined as a member, for that
relevant portion marked as Ex.D.1. He further testified that he did not state to the police that he came to know the Superintendent of Police and Additional
Superintendent of Police also joined in the scheme. The said portion also marked as Ex.D.2. P.W.57 testified that P.W.5 stated before him as in Ex.D.1 and
Ex.D.2. Therefore, P.W.57 admitted that P.W.5 stated before him as in Ex.D.1 and Ex.D.2, we can draw inference that P.W.5 intentionally not deposing against
Superintendent of Police and Additional Superintendent of Police. Moreover,
CC.No.01/2020 32 26.03.2024
when we considered the entire evidence of P.W.5, he was not influenced or requested by either A2 or A4, but he was influenced by camp clerk of
Superintendent of Police as well as the payments made by other police officials.
Though he testified that he paid the amount of Rs.11,500/-, but as per his own statement ie., particularly Ex.D.1, he made only payment of Rs.8,500/-, for that also he has no receipt. Whatsoever the evidence of P.W.5 not establishing the payment to either A2 or A4.
61. PW.7 who is a Government Teacher testified that he do not know the accused, but in the year 2000 he joined in a scheme floated by Indian Green
Glory Services Pvt. Ltd., and paid an amount of Rs.11,500/- for joining in the scheme, thereafter came to know that said company was closed. In his cross- examination he admitted that he has not obtained any receipt showing the payment of Rs.11,500/- from the concerned person. This PW.7 evidence also not establishing that he made any payment to A2 to A4 or on whose representation or promise he joined as a member in scheme floated by Indian Green Glory
Services Pvt. Ltd.
62. P.W.9 is also a constable, who worked as constable in Nellore II
Town Police station at relevant time of the case, he testified that in or about 1999 two persons whose names he do not remember approached him for joining of scheme floated by Indian Green Glory Services Pvt. Ltd.,, basing on their statement joined and paid an amount of Rs.11,500/- and subsequently came to know that said company was closed. In his cross-examination he testified that along with him his Sub-Inspector of Police also joined in the scheme and he not obtained any receipt for making payment of Rs.11,500/-. That Sub-Inspector of
Police examined as P.W.12, in his evidence he testified that in the year 2000 A2 and A3 approached him for joining in a scheme floated by Indian Green Glory
Services Pvt. Ltd., and lured by their words, he joined his wife in the scheme by paying an amount of Rs.11,500/-. In his cross-examination he testified that he
CC.No.01/2020 33 26.03.2024
cannot identify A2 and A3 due to lapse of time. He further testified that he is not having any receipt to show that he paid Rs.11,500/- on behalf of his wife.
When we considered the evidence of P.W.9 and P.W.12, their evidence is not establishing particularly the involvement of A2 to A4, because PW.12 clearly testified that he cannot identify A2 and A3. Moreover, he is not the member of the scheme and he paid the amount on behalf of his wife, who joined him. But the wife of P.W.12 not examined in this case either by police or before the Court.
63. P.W.38 who is a practicing advocate for the last 40 years testified that he know A1, who conducted meeting at Stonehousepet, Nellore propagating about their charitable objectives and giving helping hand to poor, out of the scheme floated by them, being attracted he and his daughter joined in the scheme and paid an amount of Rs.28,000/- and odd, and the said amount was deposited in the account of A5. He testified that at the time of meeting, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was donated to the Hospital Swallos at Stonehousepet.
When we considered the evidence of P.W.38, he has direct acquaintance with
A1, but he not spoken against A2 to A4, therefore no cross-examination conducted. When we considered above said witnesses evidence, their evidence is not establishing the involvement of A2 to A4 either promoted the scheme floated and propagated by Indian Green Glory Services Pvt. Ltd., as alleged by he prosecution or induced any of the witness to pay the payments.
64. Moreover, out of above said witnesses, most of the, like P.W.1,
P.W.4, P.W.5, P.W.9 and P.W.12 who supported the case of prosecution nothing but police officials. How can we expect being police persons they were influenced by A2 to A4 to make a payment of Rs.11,500/- without any receipt.
Moreover, as admitted by P.W.57, this P.W.1 and P.W.4 are nothing but gunmen to the then Superintendent of Police by name C.Narasaiah. Normally common man may not be in a position to approach the police to influence to make any payment like this type of scheme. But here when we considered the evidence of
CC.No.01/2020 34 26.03.2024
above said witnesses, it is clear that all the persons who made the payments were influenced by the acts of their own higher officials in the police department like the then Superintendent of Police by name C.Narasaiah and his wife
Lakshmi Rajyam, Additional Superintendent of Police, Camp Clerk of
Superintendent of Police by name Babu and other police officials, who paid the amounts. But strangely in this case no police persons faced trial either for promoted or induced with their acts to make the payments to others.
65. Moreover, when we have observed no witness identified the A2 to
A4 though P.W.2 in his examination in chief testified that he know A2 and A3, who approached him, but in his cross-examination testified that he did not know
A2 and A3. PW.2 also clearly and categorically testified that due to request of
Babu, who is a camp clerk of Superintendent of Police, he made the payments.
Though P.W.12, who is Superintendent of Police, Octopus at present and Sub- inspector at the relevant time of this case testified that A2 and A3 lured him to pay the payments on behalf of his wife, but not testified that what words lured him, which were uttered by A2 and A.3. Moreover, as per the allegations of prosecution, when a person made investment, it will be multiple immediately and he will get amount of Rs.22,000/- on payment of Rs.11,000/- and subsequently also they will get Rs.1,96,91,800/- apart from other benefits like presentation of silver, pearl, Ruby, Gold, Platinum, Diamond and other items, but such words not testified by either of the witnesses, who supported the case of prosecution. Moreover, P.W.1 testified that he was informed as on payment of
Rs.11,000/- after joined four persons he will get double of the amount within a month. Whereas P.W.2 testified that he was informed that on payment of
Rs.11,500/- he will get double amount within five or six months. But P.W.2 not testified about joining of other persons through him. Moreover, the payment of amount as well as floated scheme of Indian Green Glory Services Pvt. Ltd., not corroborated by all the witnesses in the same manner. This is also creating a
CC.No.01/2020 35 26.03.2024
doubt whether Investigating Officer examined the witnesses or prepared their documents as if they wish.
66. P.W.57 clearly and categorically admitted that P.W.1 is resident of
Mulapet. In his examination in chief he clearly and categorically testified that after registered the case and examined the PW.1 at police station by recorded his statement, he left the police station and visited District Police Office, Nellore, when he examined P.W.4. Then he left the District Police Office and reached
Police Quarters at Mulapet, where he secured the wife of P.W.1 and recorded her statement, also examined the scene of offence, which is situated at the house of complainant, in the presence of wife of P.W.1 ie., L.W.3-Syed Khaja Bee. As per the evidence of P.W.57, where P.W.1 is residing at Police Quarters, Mulapet is scene of offence. But either P.W.1 or P.W.4 not testified that A2 to A4 approached PW.1 at the house of P.W.1. Whatsoever as per the evidence of
P.W.57, Mulapeta is a scene of offence, how V Town Police station got jurisdiction to investigate the case is in doubt. It is an admitted fact from the record that
Indian Green Glory Services Pvt. Ltd., the registered office situated at Bangalore, but not at Nellore. Even we considered the activities of the company has been taken in and around of Nellore, but the complainant ie., P.W.1 made a report, who is resident of Mulapet as per own evidence of Investigating Officer P.W.57, the scene of offence is situated at Police quarters, Mulapeta, which is under the territorial jurisdiction of I Town police station. In this regard, the learned counsel for defence argued that P.W.57 is nothing but close follower of Superintendent of
Police, who came after transferred the C.V.Narasaiah ie., Srinivasulu Reddy. The learned counsel for defence further argued that after transferred the then
Superintendent of Police C.V.Narasaiah, Srinivasulu Reddy instigated P.W.1 to make complaint with V Town police station, who are his followers without any deviation of direction. Whatsoever, as per own evidence of P.W.57, the V Town
Police station has no jurisdiction to make any investigation, at best he can
CC.No.01/2020 36 26.03.2024
register the First Information Report and transfer it to I Town police station,
Nellore for necessary investigation. We already observed as per own evidence of P.W.57, some of the police officials along with the then Superintendent of
Police, Additional Superintendent of Police, Camp clerk by name Babu and wife of C.V.Narasaiah, the then Superintendent of Police by name Lakshmi Rajyam also promoters of A1’s company. If so why they have not cited any police officials as accused in this case as known to the Investigating Officer also and not even cited as witness.
67. The Bank officials examined as P.W.15, P.W.43 and P.W.47 to establish the financial transactions of A2 to A4. Out of above said witnesses,
P.W.15 testified that as per records maintained in their Bank at Korlagunta, A2 was having S.B.Account bearing No.01190008443 and made a transaction from 18.02.1999, for that he handed over original account opening form of A2 to the concerned police in the said opening form marked as Ex.P.8. In his cross- examination he testified that for opening an S.B.Account, officially valid document has to be produced by the customer and he has to be introduced by another person at that time. Whatsoever, when we considered the evidence of
P.W.15, at best established that A2 had Saving Bank account, which we have observed supra that the S.B.I Municipal Court Branch, Tirupathi, but not establishing any deposits either from the above said witnesses or any other person induced words of A2 and promoted any sceheme. P.W.43 and P.W.47 also Branch Managers of Andhra Bank, Stonehousepet and Tamilnadu Bank respectively, who testified that they have no record available in their office regarding this case issues. As such the evidence of P.W.43 and P.W.47 also not establishing any transactions pertaining to the case issues. Though P.W.57 testified that as he seized the bank passbooks, cheques and D.Ds. which are marked as Ex.P.48 to Ex.P.53 not establishing any involvement of A2 to A4 and got any amount from any person. Moreover, seizure itself is in doubt, because
CC.No.01/2020 37 26.03.2024
no individual available as mediator from vicinity of place, where P.W.57 sezied those documents. Moreover, seizure report or document not reached to Court within 24 hours as argued by the learned counsel for defence.
68. P.W.32 testified that on 05.02.2008 he was called by D.S.P., CID,
Tirupathi and on that he and his V.R.O., went to the CID office, where police showed a person and in their presence confessional statement has been recorded by the police and his name is Joseph Venus ie. nothing but A1, who noted on record as absconding. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.32 at this time is not relevant. P.W.48 also a mediator, he testified that he called by the Sub-
Inspector of Police, V Town Police station, he went to police station where he signed on the documents on the request of police. As such though P.W.57 testified that he secured the presence of P.W.48 and L.W.74-Poosala Kondareddy and went to Chennai and Naidupet, where confessional statements and books were recovered ie., Ex.P.48 to Ex.P.55 under Ex.P.46 and Ex.P.47. But the mediator clearly and categorically testified that he signed on Ex.P.46 and Ex.P.47 at police station only. Therefore, the version of P.W.48 raised a cloud on the
Investigating Officers investigation particularly P.W.59. Though prosecution examined P.W.49 and P.W.50, their evidence also not establishing any incriminating in commission of offence by the accused 2 to 4. On the light of
P.W.57’s evidence, the Investigating Officers evidence ie., P.W.52 to P.W.56 and
P.W.58 to P.W.61 also not establishing any involvement of A2 to A4 in commission of offence under section 3 of A.P. Prize Chits and Money Circulation
Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978. As such the prosecution miserably failed to brought the guilt of accused for the offence punishable under section 4 of of
A.P. Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978.
69. Now, we have to examine how far prosecution is inable to establish the guilt of accused for the offences punishable under section 120B and Sec.420 of IPC. Before going to observe the evidence and marshal of
CC.No.01/2020 38 26.03.2024
evidence, it is just and necessary to observe the provision particularly Sec.120B
IPC, where they defined criminal conspiracy and it is punishable under section 120-B IPC as well as 415 IPC, which define the cheating punishable under section 420 IPC are read as follows:
Sec.120-B Punishment of criminal conspiracy:
(1) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence. (2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months, a with fine or with both.
Sec.415 - Cheating:
Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property, to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to ‘cheat’. Sec.420 – Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property:-
Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to a seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
70. When we considered the above observation, it is not necessary to repeat not only the evidence, but also the facts. On considered above observation, the prosecution not in a position to establish either conspiracy between A1 to A5 as well as involvement of A2 to A4. Moreover, we have already clearly and categorically observed any of the witnesses not made any payment due to influence of words of A2 to A4, but they have made payments on the influence of position of police officials like Superintendent of Police,
CC.No.01/2020 39 26.03.2024
Additional Superintendent of Police and Camp Clerk and other police officials.
In spite of so many police officials influenced lower cadre staff ie., constable, but either V Town police station or crime investigation department not fixed any responsibility or case against the police officials, for the reasons best known to them. Whatsoever, the prosecution is miserably failed to make the case against
A2 to A4 for the offences punishable under section 120-B and Sec.420 of IPC.
Accordingly, A2 to A4 are acquitted for the above said offences.
71. In the result, accused/A2 to A4 are found not guilty for the offences U/Sec.420, 409, 120-B of IPC, Sec.4 of A.P.Prize chits and Money
Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 and they are acquitted
U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C for the said offences. The bail bonds of A2 to A4 with that of their sureties shall stand canceled. The bail bonds of accused/A2 to A4 obtained U/Sec.437(A) of Cr.P.C shall be in force for a period of six months from the date of this judgment.
The unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.
Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-II, transcribed by her, corrected
and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 26 th day of March, 2024.
Sd/- B.Lakshminarayana
Principal Asst.Sessions Judge,
Nellore.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Prosecution: For Defence:
PW1: Syed Habbe Basha, ASI. – NONE – PW2: Elari Prabhudas, Secretary of Dileep Nursing School, Nellore. PW3: M.Sridhar Rao. PW4: N.Raghava Rao, Inspector. PW5: P.Vamseedhar. PW6: M.Balakrishna, Rtd. S.I. PW7: P.Vijaya Kumari, Govt. Teacher. PW8: V.Suhasini.
CC.No.01/2020 40 26.03.2024
PW9: I.Suryanarayana, Head constable. PW10: Thirumala Rao. PW11: D.Lakshmi Narayana. PW12: B.Ravindra, S.P. Octopus. PW13: B.Hazarath Babu. PW14: M.Srinivasulu. PW15: C.Suryakumar, Chief Manager, SBI, Municipal Court Branch, Tirupathi. PW16: R.Pundari Aksham, Charted Accountant. PW17: N.Sailendra Babu. PW18: M.Rathna Reddy. PW19: Y.Ramireddy PW20: G.Annapurna. PW21: S.Penchala Reddy. PW22: M.Rosi Reddy. PW23: P.Narasimha Swamy. PW24: M.Sathya Narayana Murthy. PW25: G.Dhanunjaya. PW26: R.Soundharya Rajan. PW27: K.Hari Kumar Rao. PW28: N.Janiki, Rtd. Teacher. PW29: K.R.Surendra Babu, Rtd. Employee. PW30: A.Krishnaiah, Rtd. Employee. PW31: M.Mallikarjunaiah PW32: M.Ashok Reddy, Deputy Tasildhar. PW33: A.Sriram Kumar, Retired RTC Employee. PW34: A.Krishna Reddy, Retired RTC Employee. PW35: K.Venkata Sai Baba, Retired RTC Employee. PW36: A.Sridhar, Manager, APGP, Stonehousepet. PW37: D.Santhakumar, Asst. Manager. PW38: Y.V.Seshaiah, Advocate. PW39: Shaik Ismail, Retired ACTO. PW40: M.Prameelamma, Retired Teacher. PW41: P.Yellaiah, Retired RTC Employee. PW42: Ega Srinivasulu, RTC Employee. PW43: K.Satish Kumar, Branch Manager. PW44: Haji Valli, Senior Manager. PW45: S.Venkata Rao, Retired Employee. PW46: Remy Gerald. PW47: M.Palanippan, Manager in TMB. PW48: D.Venkaiah, retired VRO. PW49: T.Vijaya Kumar, Examiner of Accounts, GHMC, Hyderabad. PW50: M.Ravindra Sai, Rtd., Chief Commissioner, Income Tax. PW51: T.Ramanamma, Government Employee. PW52: K.Subrahmanyam, Rtd., D.S.P. PW53: M.Sambhasiva Reddy, Rtd.,D.S.P. PW54: Ch.Venkateswara Rao, Rtd., Addl.S.P. PW55: A.Bala Reddy, Rtd., D.S.P. PW56: V.V.Naidu, ACP, Vijayawada. PW57: C.Vijaya Bhaskara Rao, D.S.P. PW58: P.Audinarayana, Rtd. A.S.P. PW59: M.V.S.Swamy, S.P. Mangalagiri, CID.
CC.No.01/2020 41 26.03.2024
PW60: Mohammad Shareef, Rtd., D.S.P. PW61: P.Mallikarjuna Guptha, Inspector of Police, Rayachoti.
DOCUMENTS MARKED
For Prosecution: For Defence:
Ex.P1: Report given by P.W.1 to police. Ex.P2: Sec.161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.3. Ex.P3: Sec.161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.8. Ex.P4: Sec.161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.10. Ex.P5: Sec.161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.11. Ex.P6: Sec.161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.13. Ex.P7: Sec.161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.14. Ex.P8: Original account opening form of M.Ravichandra. Ex.P9: Sec.161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.16. Ex.P10: Sec.161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.17. Ex.P11: Sec.161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.18. Ex.P12: Sec.161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.19. Ex.P13: Sec.161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.20. Ex.P14: Sec.161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.21. Ex.P15: Sec.161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.22. Ex.P16: Sec.161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.23. Ex.P17: Sec.161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.24. Ex.P18: Sec.161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.25. Ex.P19: Sec.161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.26. Ex.P20: Sec.161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.27. Ex.P21: Sec.161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.28. Ex.P22: Sec.161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.29. Ex.P23: Sec.161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.30. Ex.P24: Sec.161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.31. Ex.P25: Copy of the Mediators report dated 06.02.2008. Ex.P26: Sec.161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.33. Ex.P27: Sec.161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.34. Ex.P28: Sec.161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.35. Ex.P29: Sec.161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.39. Ex.P30: Sec.161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.40. Ex.P31: Sec.161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.41. Ex.P32: Sec.161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.42. Ex.P33: Sec.161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.45. Ex.P34: Audit report. Ex.P35: Certified copy of Intimation U/Sec.143(1) of Income Tax Act issued by ITO Ward.11(2) along with tax return furnished by Indian Green Glory Service Pvt. Ltd., for the assessment year 1996-97. Ex.P36: Income Tax returns filed by the company for the assessment year 2000-01. Ex.P37: Sec.161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.51. Ex.P38: Xerox copy of Mediator’s report dated 05.02.2008 at 10.00 A.M. Ex.P39: Xerox copy of Mediator’s report dated 06.02.2008 at 02.00 P.M. Ex.P40: Xerox copy of Mediator’s report dated 06.02.2008 at 06.00 P.M. Ex.P41: Xerox copy of Mediator’s report dated 05.02.2008 at 10.00 A.M. Ex.P42: Copy of the letter dated 02.08.2003 addressed by P.W.56 to the Branch Manager, Pinakini Grameena Bank, Nellore.
CC.No.01/2020 42 26.03.2024
Ex.P43: Xerox copy of the letter dated 27.08.2003 addressed by Pinakini Grameena Bank, Nellore. Ex.P44: Copy of letter dated 10.09.2003 addressed to II AJMFC, Nellore Along with letter of advice. Ex.P45: Original F.I.R. Ex.P46: Confessional statement. Ex.P47: Seven applications seized under mahazarnama dated 20.11.2000 at 06.00 p.m. Ex.P48: Nine Passbooks. Ex.P49: Four demand drafts. Ex.P50: Three cheque books issued by Panjab National Bank. Ex.P51: Two papers showing the payments of various persons. Ex.P52: Three accounts books maintained by accused. Ex.P53: Three Sky Biz books maintained by accused. Ex.P54: Seizure Mahazarnama dated 20.11.2000 at 6.00 p.m. Ex.P55: Confession statement of A4.
For Defence:
Ex.D1: Marked portion in Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.5. Ex.D2: Marked portion in Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.5.
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED
– NIL –
Sd/-B.Lakshminarayana
Principal Asst.Sessions Judge,
Nellore.
Copies to
1. The Hon’ble Registrar(Judicial) High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi (Through the Hon’ble District Judge, Nellore)
2. The Hon’ble District Judge, Nellore.
3. The District Collector, Nellore.
4. The Superintendent of Police, Nellore.
5. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Ist Addl.Asst.Sessions Court, Nellore.
6. The Station House Officer, V Town Police Station, Nellore.