Page 1 C.C. No.137 of 2016 II AJCJ-cum-II AJMFC.
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM II
ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, MEDCHAL-
MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT, AT KUSHAIGUDA
PRESENT: SMT. J. PRASANTHI II Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, At Kushaiguda.
Friday, this the 12 thday of December, 2025
CALENDAR CASE NO.137 of 2016
Between:
1.KADAMBARI CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD, A Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 having its office at B-28/B, 2nd Avenue, Sainikpuri, Secunderabad. Represented by Mr. Polasa Ravi Kumar, Director.
2.Polasa Ravi Kumar, S/o. Sri. P.B.Chari, aged : 40 years, Occ: Business, R/o. B-28/B, 2nd Avenue, Sainikpuri, Secunderabad.
……..Complainants no.1 and 2.
A N D A1. Mr. Mallimadugula Venkata Bhaskar, S/o. Mallimadugula Venkata Ramarao, age: 49 years, Occ: Chartered Accountant, R/o.73, Ashok Manipuri, Kapra, Hyderabad – 500 062.
A2. Smt. Yellapantula Kalyani, W/o. Mallimadugula Venkata Bhaskar, age: 43 years, Occ: Service, R/o. 73, Ashok Manipuri, Kapra, Hyderabad – 500 062.
A3. Smt. Yellapantula Chitra Aparna, W/o. Vullikanti Srinivas Anilkumar, age: 40 years, Occ: Chartered Accountant, Present Address: 1300C Copper Croft Run, Blacksburg, VA. 24060. USA.
II AJMFC
Page 2 C.C. No.137 of 2016 II AJCJ-cum-II AJMFC.
A4. Sri. T. Sampath Kumar, S/o. Sri. R. Thothathri, age: 57 years, Occ: Business, R/o.651, 11th Main Road, 5th Block, Jayanagar, Bengaluru – 560 041.
......Accused no.1 to 4.
(Note: The case has been split-up against the accused no.3 and 4 vide
CC No.924 of 2022)
This case came before me on 05-12-2025 for final hearing in the presence of the M/s. K. Rajendran, Advocate for Complainants no.1 and 2 and Sri. S. Nagesh Reddy, Advocate for accused No.1 and 2, upon hearing the arguments of both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
1.This is a complaint case filed by two complainants against four accused persons, alleging that the accused have committed the offences punishable U/Secs.120, 120B, 403, 406, 420, 426, 468, 471, 477-A of the Indian Penal Code and also under the provisions under Sec.3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and section 13 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1990. As seen from the cause title of the complainants, Kadambari Consultants Pvt. Ltd. (which hereinafter referred as C1), said to have been represented by one Polasa
Ravi Kumar, is shown as the first complainant and said Polasa Ravi Kumar who is examined as PW1 before this court, shown as second complainant.
The second complainant claims that he was authorized by the concerned to represent the first complainant. Since the complaint disclosed
II AJMFC
Page 3 C.C. No.137 of 2016 II AJCJ-cum-II AJMFC.
cognizable offences, the same was referred to concerned police and who registered it as Crime No.579 of 2013 and took up the investigation.
However, at a later date, the police filed a final report stating that the allegations made in the complaint are with regard to alleged violation of some contractual obligations, and it is civil dispute and no crime has been made out.
2.The second complainant filed a protest petition. After filing protest petition this court recorded the statements of second complainant, one Murali and one Ravinder as witnesses. Considering the allegations in the complaint and sworn statements of above witnesses, my predecessor-in-office took the case on the file against all the four accused for the offences U/Secs.406, 468, 471, 420, 477-A Indian Penal
Code and the complaint was registered as CC No.137 of 2016. The accused were served with the summons and made their appearance through their counsels and raised various objections about the maintainability of the complaint filed by complainant no.2 and they have filed petitions seeking discharge them also. But, their requests were negatived by this court. The case has been split-up against the accused no.3 and 4 vide CC No.924 of 2022.
3.As already stated, this case arises from a complaint case and the offences alleged against the accused are warrant cases, as such
II AJMFC
Page 4 C.C. No.137 of 2016 II AJCJ-cum-II AJMFC.
the same shall be tried under the provisions of chapter 19 part B of the
Cr.P.C (i.e., cases instituted otherwise than a police report) and the procedure is available under Sec.244 and 255 Cr.P.C 1973. As per the said provisions, this court, after securing the accused’s presence, having heard the complainant, records the evidence produced by the complainant and based on the said evidence, if sufficient material exists, frames charges against the accused. But, inadvertently, instead of examining the witnesses first, the then presiding officer has examined the accused persons under Sec.239 of Cr.P.C, and framed charges based on the complaint petition and sworn statements of witnesses No.1 to 3.
The accused have denied the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Subsequently, the court proceeded with the examination of the witnesses of the complainant, and on conclusion of the complainants evidence, the accused were examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C., thereafter on a petition filed by the accused, the accused no.1 was examined himself as
DW1. Both the parties, in addition to their respective oral evidence, produced some documents which are marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P12 and
Ex.D1 to Ex.D21. The case was ripe for disposal, my predecessor-in-office having realized the mistake in conducting the trial, reopened the matter giving liberty to the parties to produce pre-trial evidence. The parties have filed a memo to consider the evidence already adduced on record
II AJMFC
Page 5 C.C. No.137 of 2016 II AJCJ-cum-II AJMFC.
and requested this court to frame charges. Since this case needs to be tried U/Sec.244 Cr.P.C., this court directed the counsel for complainant to adduce evidence. The complainant is again examined before this court, however his evidence is very clear that the same is on his own behalf but not on behalf of the first complainant.
4.I have heard the learned counsels appearing for the complainant and accused regarding the charges and, based on the statement of PW1, I have framed the charges U/Secs.406, 420 and 477-A of Indian Penal Code against the accused No.1 and U/Secs.420, 406 against the accused no.2. They pleaded not guilty, and the learned counsels have submitted their respective arguments. The learned counsel for the accused raised an objection about the right of PW1 to represent the first complainant and question the correctness of Ex.P11, the alleged authorization/board resolution. The competence of PW1 to represent the first complainant will be discussed in the subsequent paragraphs of this Judgment.
5.The learned counsels for the accused, though he cross- examined PW1 after his examination-in-chief, as required U/Sec.244
Cr.P.C., to some extent, filed a memo and sought to adopt the earlier cross-examination. It is a fact that, although there is some procedural irregularity the witnesses have been examined before this court, and
II AJMFC
Page 6 C.C. No.137 of 2016 II AJCJ-cum-II AJMFC.
what all they deposed is available on record, thus even if it is adopted, no prejudice would be caused to either party.
6.Before examining the evidence on record, it is apt to refer the brief case of the complainants against the accused persons. The following is the brief case of complainant no.1 and 2 as per the complaint petition.
T he Brief case of complainants, is as follows:-
7.The complainant submits that his company was incorporated to provide Business Process Outsourcing and Information Technology enabled services, was originally incorporated by Accused no.1 and
Accused no.3 as its subscribers and first Directors. Complainant no.2 is a
Director of the company and holds a controlling interest through majority shareholding. Accused no.1 is a practicing Chartered Accountant,
Accused no.3 is a Chartered Accountant based in the USA and sister-in- law of Accused no.1, Accused no.2 is the wife of Accused no.1 and employed in service, and Accused no.4 is a close associate who claims to be an inventor and patent holder of a Nano-Technology plant nutrient called “Nualgi.”
8.It is further submits that accused no.1, acting as statutory auditor for another business of Mr. Polasa Ravi Kumar namely Polasa
Builders and Merchants Pvt. Ltd., along with Accused no’s.2 and 3, used his fiduciary position in 2008 to solicit investment by representing that a
II AJMFC
Page 7 C.C. No.137 of 2016 II AJCJ-cum-II AJMFC.
product called “Nualgi,” developed by Accused no.4, could be marketed by the complainant company under their control. Complainant no.2 was led to believe that Rs.25,00,000/- was required as a non-refundable payment to obtain exclusive global marketing rights for the product, and that an additional Rs.25,00,000/- was needed as working capital. Relying on these representations, Complainant no.2 and his associates invested about Rs.50,00,000/- into the complainant company, which was then managed and controlled by Accused no.1 to 3 in collusion with Accused no.4.
9.It is further submits that out of the total investment, of
Rs.25,00,000/- was paid to Accused no.4 under a purported
Distributorship Agreement dated 12/07/2010. Believing the distribution agreement to be genuine, Complainant no.2 worked diligently to develop the market for the Nano-Technology plant nutrient product, including obtaining necessary approvals from the Directorate of Rice Research (ICAR). He incurred additional expenses of Rs.68,000/- for obtaining the evaluation report and Rs.70,000/- towards airfare for an overseas trip to
Dubai to promote the product, apart from the original investments. The accused persons had promised to appoint Complainant no.2 to the Board of Directors and allot shares to him and/or his associates after the
II AJMFC
Page 8 C.C. No.137 of 2016 II AJCJ-cum-II AJMFC.
investment was made, but after the funds were pooled, they refused to do so. They also denied Complainant no.2 and his associates access to inspect the company’s accounts and failed to have the company’s accounts audited or made available to them.
10.It is further submits that it was discovered that no distributorship of the product “Nualgi” was actually granted to the complainant company by Accused no.4. Further inquiries revealed that
Accused no.1 to 3, in collusion with Accused no.4, were independently marketing the product for their personal gain without routing it through the complainant company, despite the purported distributorship agreement dated 12/07/2010, while company funds were used for business expenses. Upon confrontation, it emerged that the distributorship agreement and related investment were part of a conspiracy to misappropriate funds from Complainant no.2 and his associates, resulting in cheating and defrauding both the investors and the complainant company. When the Accused no.1 to 3 refused to allow
Complainant no.2 and his associates to inspect the company’s accounts and failed to provide any financial records, the investors became suspicious and accessed the complainant company’s ICICI Bank account at AS Rao Nagar Branch. They discovered that Accused no.1 had
II AJMFC
Page 9 C.C. No.137 of 2016 II AJCJ-cum-II AJMFC.
siphoned company funds into his personal account, with transfers amounting to Rs.9,13,250/-, as reflected in the bank statements filed herewith.
11.It is further submits that in addition to directly transferring funds, the accused persons siphoned off company money amounting to
Rs.4,37,780/- by recording fictitious bills and expenses, including false billing by Accused no.4 for alleged supplies, as supported by documents filed. Further scrutiny revealed that the accused, acting in conspiracy, routed sales of the product “Nualgi” through the complainant company to overseas customers using its website, but diverted the sale proceeds to a
US-based company, Kadambari Accountancy Services International PLLC, owned and promoted by Accused no.1 and 3. These proceeds were neither received nor accounted for by the complainant company, and related communications show deliberate diversion of funds abroad, amounting to money laundering and violations of the Foreign Exchange
Management Act. To destroy evidence, the accused persons also removed the complainant company’s website.
12.It is further submits that upon discovering the financial fraud, misappropriation, and illegal diversion of funds through a fictitious distributorship agreement intended to cheat the complainant company
II AJMFC
Page 10 C.C. No.137 of 2016 II AJCJ-cum-II AJMFC.
and genuine investors, Complainant no.2, Mr. Polasa Ravi Kumar, and his associates took control of the company by allotting shares worth Rs.48 lakhs in their names (including associates of the accused) on 25/08/2011, as documented in Form-2 filed with the Registrar of Companies. However, the corresponding funds were missing from the company, having already been siphoned off by the accused through the fictitious agreement and falsified accounts. The financial statements up to 31.03.2011, signed by
Accused no.1, testify to these malpractices, acknowledging payments to
Accused no.4 and others while showing the funds as wiped out and recorded as losses.
13.It is further submits that after Complainant no.2 took control of the company, Accused no.1 to 3 were removed from the Board of
Directors effective 05/02/2012, as evidenced by Form-32 filed with the
Registrar of Companies. The complainant submits that Accused no.1, exploiting his fiduciary relationship with Complainant no.2, conspired with
Accused no.2, 3, and 4 who are none other than his wife, sister-in-law, and his close friend (A4), to misuse the company’s legal entity. They induced Complainant no.2 and his associates to invest money under the pretense of a distributorship agreement and through falsified accounts,
II AJMFC
Page 11 C.C. No.137 of 2016 II AJCJ-cum-II AJMFC.
with the deliberate intention of diverting and siphoning off funds, and successfully executed this plan.
14.It is further submits that the complainant has appointed an external audit firm to investigate further embezzlement by the accused, and any additional findings will be provided to the investigating agency.
The accused no.1 to 4 are alleged to have dishonestly engaged in cheating, criminal misappropriation, criminal breach of trust, mischief, forgery, using forged documents as genuine, account falsification, destruction of evidence, money laundering, violation of FEMA, and professional misconduct for personal gain. Their actions caused financial and business detriment to the complainant company and Complainant no.2, resulting in the dishonest appropriation of Rs.38,60,000/-.
Consequently, the accused are liable for prosecution under sections 120B, 120, 403, 406, 420, 426, 468, 471, 477A of the IPC, sections 3 & 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and section 13 of the
Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1990.
15.It is further submits that the complainant submits that this
Court has jurisdiction to try the offence, as the accused conducted the company’s registered office from their residential address in Kapra, where the entire conspiracy took place. Given that the investigation
II AJMFC
Page 12 C.C. No.137 of 2016 II AJCJ-cum-II AJMFC.
involves specialized knowledge of the Companies Act, securities, corporate management, the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, and
FEMA, the court may take cognizance of the complaint and proceed to try the case after summoning the accused persons.
16.It is further submits that the complainant states that the accused committed the offences on multiple occasions from September 2008 to July 2009 when amounts were collected from Complainant no.2 and his associates, in July 2010 when a major amount was taken by
Accused no. 4, and from February 2009 to July 2012 when the accused withdrew funds from the company account. During this period, they also falsified accounts. The offences are continuing, as the accused have yet to repay the full amount to the complainant company. These acts occurred at multiple locations, including the company office and the residences of the accused, thus falling within the jurisdiction of this
Court.
17.It is further submits that the complainant prays that Accused nos.1 to 4 be charged under sections 120B, 120, 403, 406, 420, 426, 468, 471, 477A of the Indian Penal Code, sections 3 & 4 of the Prevention of
Money Laundering Act, 2002, and section 13 of the Foreign Exchange
Management Act, 1990. The complainants requests that the accused
II AJMFC
Page 13 C.C. No.137 of 2016 II AJCJ-cum-II AJMFC.
persons be summoned, tried for the offences committed, punished accordingly, and directed to compensate the financial loss, injury, or damage caused to the complainants under section 357(b) of the Criminal
Procedure Code.
18.As I have already stated, though there is an allegation in the complaint about the commission of an offences and the provisions of
PMLA and FEMA, the case was taken on file for the offences U/Secs.406, 468, 471, 420, 477-A of the Indian Penal Code, and the complainants did not raise any objection nor they have challenged the order under which the case was registered for the offences U/Secs.406, 468, 471, 420, 477-
A of the Indian Penal Code.
19.In order to prove his case, the second complainant was examined himself as PW1 and he has marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P12 documents. He did not choose any other independent witnesses, despite his specific case that his friend and relatives had also invested funds in the first complainant company and despite producing a long list of with some names as so-called investors. Accused no.1 was examined himself as DW1 and he has marked Ex.D1 to Ex.D21.
20.Heard both the learned counsels appearing for the parties, perused the written arguments submitted by both the counsels, also
II AJMFC
Page 14 C.C. No.137 of 2016 II AJCJ-cum-II AJMFC.
perused the following citations filed by the learned counsel for the accused no.1 and 2.
1. 2024 INSC 626 Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd Vs The State of Uttar Pradesh, 2024
2. 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 305 Vijay Kumar Ghai & Ors. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
3. Criminal Appeal No.238 of 2019 Prof R K Vijayasarathy & Anr Vs. Sudha Seetharam & Anr.
4. Criminal M.C.No.1942 and 2005 of 2004 Wolfgang Reim and Ors. Vs. State and Ors.
5. Criminal Appeal Nos.359-360 of 2010 Sheila Sebastian Vs. R. Jawaharaj and Ors.
21. Now the Point for consideration is:
Whether the complainants no.1 and 2 are able to prove the guilt of the accused no.1 for the offences U/Secs.406, 420, 477-A of Indian Penal Code, and Accused no.2 for the offences U/Secs.406, 420 of
Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt?
22.In view of the mistake that crept in proceedings with the case, the evidence of PW1 was recorded twice, and in the second occasion the learned counsel for the accused without repeating the earlier cross- examination sought to adopt the earlier cross-examination of PW1. It is true, that after the examination of PW1 as required U/Sec.244 Cr.P.C., he was cross-examined in part, deferred for further cross-examination, but he was not again further cross-examined, but in view of the memo filed by the accused, this court can rely on the earlier cross-examination,
II AJMFC
Page 15 C.C. No.137 of 2016 II AJCJ-cum-II AJMFC.
which infact not disputed by the PW1. If he were required to further cross-examine again on the same points, there is every possibility of PW1 resiling from his previous version and he may say something by changing his earlier admissions in his own interest and in such case it will cause serious prejudice to the accused persons. Since, the said evidence was recorded by this court in the presence of both the parties, the same can be taken judicial note for correct and effective disposal of the case.
23.In order to prove his case the second complainant examined himself as PW1 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P12. Though he alleged many aspects in compliant including allegations about the offences said to have been committed by the accused persons under the provisions of
PMLA and FEMA, he did not whisper anything touching these allegations at the time of his sworn statement and in his evidence, perhaps with a view to keep the case pending before this court, instead of approaching
ED or other concerned authorities. Among the documents he marked
Ex.P4, Ex.P6, Ex.P8 and Ex.P9 are certified copies filed without supporting certificate as required under section 65 B of Indian Evidence Act. He did not evince any interest to summoning the concerned persons to prove the correctness of these documents. Ex.P1 is his complaint petition.
Ex.P2 is the Protest Petition. As on the date of the said protest petition,
II AJMFC
Page 16 C.C. No.137 of 2016 II AJCJ-cum-II AJMFC.
PW1 did not hold any post in complainant no.1 company. Except Ex.P11, the other documents may not be prove the allegations leveled by the complainants.
24.Ex.P11 is a crucial document for both the parties. PW1 has filed this document to claim authorization to file the complaint on behalf of the first complainant. As already stated above, soon after the complaint was filed, the same was referred to the police U/Sec.156 (3)
Cr.P.C as per the endorsement on the FIR in Crime No.579/2013, this case was registered on 08-10-2013. PW1 has claimed that Ex.P11 was passed on 03-09-2012. Infact, his own evidence in the connected case would shows that he was in London on 31-08-2012, when his friend T.
Ravinder filed a complaint against the accused no.1. When the close friend of PW1 himself filed a case raising the same allegations on 31-08- 2012, and got registered a crime, there was no necessity of passing a resolution authorizing PW1 to lodge another complaint. It is nothing but absurd to believe. In addition to that, if such resolution really existed, certainly PW1 could have produce it before the police when they registered the above crime. There is no explanation from PW1 as to why he did not file any complaint till October 2013, despite having resolution authorizing him to file a case against he accused persons. Therefore, the
II AJMFC
Page 17 C.C. No.137 of 2016 II AJCJ-cum-II AJMFC.
alleged authorization cannot be accepted to be a genuine document. Out of the twelve documents relied on by PW1 these documents namely
Exhibits P1, P2, P4, P6, P8, P9 and P11 are ignored, the other documents are normal and may not be help PW1 in proving the case.
25.The record placed before the court, including the petitions filed by the accused seeking withdrawal of the case in the capacity of
Directors of the company, clearly indicates that PW1 was never a
Managing Director of the first complainant company. He claimed authorization to represent complainant no.1 on the basis of Ex.P11 an alleged authorization dt: 03-09-2012. The accused have disputed the correctness of this resolution. To strengthen their case, they relied on the copy of Judgment in CC No.578 of 2014 on the file of II Addl. Junior Civil
Judge-cum-XX MM court, Cyberabad, at Malkajgiri vide Ex.P15, which is
not in dispute. As can be seen from the said Judgment, it is quite clear that before the present complaint was filed in this court, one T. Ravinder a friend of PW1 herein, has filed criminal case against the same accused with similar allegations of criminal breach of trust and cheating etc., on the ground that the accused herein having received huge sum from him and PW1 herein, failed to allot required shares. PW1 deposed in the said case claiming that he had invested Rs.19 lakhs and odd. Later he claimed
II AJMFC
Page 18 C.C. No.137 of 2016 II AJCJ-cum-II AJMFC.
that his investment was Rs.25 lakhs, and in the present complaint he claimed it was Rs.30 lakhs and odd at one point of time and Rs.50 lakhs at another point of time. It is an admitted fact that in the said case the accused herein were acquitted with a finding that the witnesses including
PW1 herein admitted the allotment of shares in their favour for the amount.
26.As rightly argued by counsel for accused, in the above referred case, PW1 has claimed that on 30-08-2012 he was in London, and he is unable to produce any authenticate evidence to prove that there was such resolution by the company to represent the same in case.
As already stated, he did not choose to examine any witness in support of the said contention. Had there been such a resolution by the company on 30-09-2012, since it is a company affair, he could have easily produce relevant evidence. Since it is an affair of a private limited company, if at all there was such a resolution, it could have been with in the knowledge of the Registrar of the companies and it may not be a difficult task for
PW1 to produce such acceptable evidence. Even though PW1 claimed that so many people have invested huge funds in the company, none of them are examined before this court.
II AJMFC
Page 19 C.C. No.137 of 2016 II AJCJ-cum-II AJMFC.
27.The records placed before this court clearly shows that, as on the date of filing the protest petition, admittedly PW1 was not in the company and not holding any role. It is elicited from PW1 that he was removed from the company. The documents filed by the accused established that PW1 and his friend were convicted by a competent court for certain offences. It is also elicited from PW1 that, although he filed a suit for recovery of the amount, which he claimed to have invested and for which he was not allotted any shares, the suit was dismissed for default, and he did not take any steps for its restoration. Therefore, as on the date of filing the police final report, PW1 was not authorized to represent the first complainant, and he cannot raise any objections to the said protest petition on behalf of complainant no.1. In view of the same, he could not have raised any objection to the final report, and only a authorized person can file. Therefore, the filing of the protest petition by
PW1 itself is an irregularity. The other documents filed by Accused no.1 vide exhibit “D” series clearly indicates internal disputes, and it is an admitted fact that PW1 was convicted by the competent court. Therefore, he had every motive to file a false case against the accused persons on this sole ground itself the accused no.1 and 2 are entitled to an acquittal.
II AJMFC
Page 20 C.C. No.137 of 2016 II AJCJ-cum-II AJMFC.
28.Apart from the above technical issues, there are no grounds to believe that the accused have committed the offences U/Secs.406, 420 and 477-A of Indian Penal Code. It is the case of PW1 that he was induced by the accused to invest huge amounts in the company, as
Accused no.4 invented a product and believing their version he and his friends have invested funds. As already stated, PW1 did not choose to examine the alleged friends/investors to prove those allegations. To prove the offences U/Secs.406 and 420 of IPC, PW1 is under an obligation to prove these accused have induced him with a false promise and made him to invest funds. However, the evidence of PW1 itself shows that the accused have marketed the product even overseas and earned profits, as such PW1 cannot claim that there was no such product and he was induced without any such product. During his earlier cross-examination
PW1 has categorically admitted that he was allotted shares for the money which he was invested. The same was his case, in CC
No.578/2014 as is evident from the Judgment vide Ex.D15. Even if the evidence of PW1 is accepted to be true, what all he stated is he came to know from the accused about the product called Nualgi and was asked to invest funds and accordingly, he invested amounts, but was not given the share. It is also his case, as per the complaint and evidence that he spent money on a Dubai tour for promoting the product and for obtaining the
II AJMFC
Page 21 C.C. No.137 of 2016 II AJCJ-cum-II AJMFC.
required certificate. If he has any grievance on the ground that he was not allotted required shares, he has to take steps before the appropriate forum as per the companies Act, however he cannot maintain a criminal case for a purely civil litigation. Therefore, the question of the accused committing cheating and criminal breach of trust does not arise.
29.The learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that since there is an admission from the accused about the receipt of money from PW1, the accused deserves to be convicted. But this court is not in a position to accept the said contention. In the light of the admission of
PW1 itself it is clear that he was allotted required shares for the amount which he has invested. The vast record produced by the accused clearly shows the disputes between the parties and the role played by PW1 in the company. PW1 is not able to prove the alleged resolution under which he claimed to have been authorized to represent the company, and it is an admitted fact that by the time he filed protest petition both on his behalf and on behalf of the company, he was out of the company.
His claim about the alleged cheating and misappropriation was once not accepted by the court in the earlier cases, and he did not pursue the suit whereby he sought to recover the alleged investment, though it was dismissed for default. Infact, he did not come forward to explain as to
II AJMFC
Page 22 C.C. No.137 of 2016 II AJCJ-cum-II AJMFC.
how he could claim such a huge amount of Rs.50 lakhs, inspite of the fact that he himself deposed before a competent court that he had invested
Rs.19 lakhs and odd. There is no explanation for his failure to examine his close associate one Mr.Ravinder. His contention about Ex.P11 i.e.,
Board resolution cannot be accepted for the reason of his failure to prove it with acceptable evidence. In the absence of such resolution, the registration of this case against the accused persons on behalf of complainant company (C1) itself is wrong.
30.Another important aspect is PW1 did not file the said alleged resolution along with his complaint, but produced it at a later date. As rightly claimed by the accused if we perused Ex.D12/Company petition
Copy, a complaint made by this PW1, wherein he has attributed something against accused no.1, a representative of complainant company (C1). Therefore, this admission of PW1 in Ex.D12 also goes against his case. In his company petition also he sought for restoration of directorship.
31.Therefore, for all the above reasons it is very clear that PW1 has filed false complaint, which may be with a view to harass the accused persons or to make them to heed his demands and it could be seen that the case has been pending since 2013. Therefore, it should be believe
II AJMFC
Page 23 C.C. No.137 of 2016 II AJCJ-cum-II AJMFC.
that PW1 is not able to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt and the accused no.1 and 2 are entitled to an acquittal.
32.In the result, accused no.1 is found not guilty for the offence under section 406, 420 and 477-A of IPC and the accused no.2 is also found not guilty for the offence under section 406, 420 of IPC and they are acquitted for the said offence U/Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bonds and bail bonds of the accused if any stands cancelled after expiry of the appeal time, subject to section 437A Cr.P.C.
(Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open court on this the 12 th day of December,
2025.)
II Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class At Kushaiguda.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR
PROSECUTION:- PW-1: Ravi Kumar Polasa (Complainant)
DEFENCE:-
DW1:M. Venkata Bhaskar
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR
PROSECUTION:
Ex.P1:Complaint
Ex.P2 :Protest Petition of PW1
Ex.P3 :CC of Certificate of Incorporation dt: 10-11-2005
II AJMFC
Page 24 C.C. No.137 of 2016 II AJCJ-cum-II AJMFC.
Ex.P4 :CC of Bank Statement
Ex.P5 :CC of Financial Statement and Agreement
Ex.P6 :CC of email print outs
Ex.P7 :CC of Statement of Bills
Ex.P8 :CC of Statement of withdrawal amounts
Ex.P9 :CC of ICAR Certificate
Ex.P10 :CC of Air Tickets
Ex.P11 :CC of extract of Board Resolution.
Ex.P12 :Company petition Copy (Marked during the cross-examination of DW1)
DEFENCE:
Ex.D1 :Complaint by MVB and YK to ROC with ACK, dt: 28-08-2012
Ex.D2 :CC of 20/2015 in Spl Court for economic offences, Nampally,
dt: 31-12-2015.
Ex.D3 :OS No.682/2013 in PDJ, Malkajgiri. Dt: 03-06-2013.
Ex.D4 :OS No.682/2013 in PDJ, Malkajgiri W.S by Defendants No.1 and 2, dt: 24-12-2013.
Ex.D5 :OS No.682/2013 Ex.B3 CC Copy of Audited accounts of KCPL for FY 2009-10, Dt: 05-09-2010.
Ex.D6 :OS 682/2013 Ex.B4 CC Copy of Email from C2/PRK,
Dt: 21-01-2012.
Ex.D7 :OS 682/2013 CC Copy Ex.B5 letter from Directorate of Rice Research to pay fee covering letter for DD to DRR and courier slip, covering letter for DD to DRR and courier slip,
Dt: 03-09-2010.
Ex.D8 :OS 682/2013 CC Copy Ex.B6 form 2, Dt: 25-08-2011- Allotment of shares, Dt: 25-08-2011. Ex.D9 :OS 682/2013 CC Copy Ex.B7 form 32, Dt: 31-01-2012, Appointment of 7 new directors, Dt: 31-01-2012.
II AJMFC
Page 25 C.C. No.137 of 2016 II AJCJ-cum-II AJMFC.
Ex.D10 :OS 682/2013 CC Copy of Ex.B8 form 32 DT: 05-02-2012 Cessation of 4 directors, Dt: 05-02-2012.
Ex.D11 :OS 682 Order Copy, Dt: 20-12-2021.
Ex.D12: OS 682 I.A 722 restoration application filed by PRK Copy,
dt: 02-03-2022.
Ex.D13:OS 682 Counter filed by MVB in I.A No.722 without attachments, Dt: 20-01-2023.
Ex.D14:OS 682 I.A 721 for condonation of delay under limitation Act,
Dt: 30-06-2022.
Ex.D15:CC 578 Order of XX MMC, Dt: 06-12-2017.
Ex.D16:Form DIR 12 filed to note cessation of office of PRK w.e.f 01-11-2014 challan no.SRN G91796912, Dt: 03-10-2017.
Ex.D17 :True Copy of Board resolution of KCPL stating that PRK is not a director of KCPL and is not authorised to represent the company, Dt: 05-09-2018.
Ex.D18:Email with letter attachment from the registrar of companies, Hyderabad unmarking C1 Company of Management dispute
Dt: 22-06-2018.
Ex.D19:Email from registrar of companies Hyderabad, approving the form DIR 12 filed on 02-07-2018, Dt: 12-07-2018.
Ex.D20:Ministry of Corporate affairs, company master Data of C1 Kadambari consultants Pvt Ltd., Dt: 23-02-2023.
Ex.D21:Ministry of corporate affairs director master Data of C2 Polasa Ravi Kumar
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR
PROSECUTION:-Nil- DEFENCE: -Nil- II Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class At Kushaiguda.
II AJMFC