Allowed

Padarthy Satyanarayana, v. The Inspector of Police C.I.D.,Rciu

Telangana HC15 Apr 2010CRLRC/1423/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal revision petition seeking permission for accused persons to resume business in a hotel building attached during trial. The court permitted the petitioners to use the property if they execute a bond, deposit security, and remit a monthly income to the criminal proceedings account, ensuring the property does not deteriorate.

What did the court decide?

Respondent directed to handover building keys; petitioners permitted to use building for hotel business upon executing bond for Rs.5 lakhs with surety and depositing Rs.1 lakh monthly income to crimin

Padarthy Satyanarayana, Vs The Inspector of Police… — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH, AT HYDERABAD

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY

¶5

CRL.R.C.No.1423 OF 2008

¶6

Between:

¶7

Padarthy Satyanarayana and another

¶8

.... PETITIONERS/A-1 & A-2

¶9

AND

¶10

The Inspector of Police, C.I.D., RCIU, Guntur.

¶11

.....RESPONDENTS

¶12

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.R.C.No.1423 OF 2008

¶13

JUDGMENT:

¶14

This criminal revision case is directed against the order dated 13-03-2008 in Crl.M.P.No.1536 of 2007 in C.C.3/FD/2007, wherein the petition filed by the petitioners/A-1 and A-2 under Section 10(a) (b) of the A.P. Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishment Act, 1999, seeking a direction to the respondent to open the building and permit the petitioners to use the immovable property, pending disposal of the case, was dismissed.

¶15

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent. Perused the records.

¶16

3. Petitioners/A-1 and A-2 are accused of offences under Sections 420, 506 IPC and Section 5 of the A.P. Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishment Act, 1999 in Cr.No.32 of 2006. The case was registered on the basis of the complaint dated 29-06-2006 given by one Mittapalli Rajendra Babu, wherein it is alleged that the petitioners were running a hotel under the name and style Hanuman Hotel and lodge and they also conducted

¶17

chit fund business and money circulation scheme and collected Rs.1,25,00,000/- from the members and they failed to repay the amount due to the depositors. According to the complainant, a sum of Rs.9,50,000/- is due to him. It is stated that after filing the complaint and initiation of criminal proceedings, pursuant thereto the respondent attached the immovable properties of the petitioners/A-1 and A-2, including the building wherein a hotel is being run, which are shown in annexures 1 and 2 of the G.O. It is also stated that ever since the date of attachment, the building is kept under lock and key of the respondent. The petitioners seek permission to re-open the building and make utilization of the moveable properties contained therein for running the hotel so that the building and the immoveable properties therein are not subjected to decay and damage because of non-user. The respondent filed counter opposing the application on the ground that the petitioners have collected deposits worth Rs.71,92,000/- and cheated the subscribers by not repaying the amounts due to them in spite of demands and acquired properties with the

¶18

amounts collected from the subscribers by way of deposits and, therefore, the properties of the petitioners were attached by following the procedure and the petitioners cannot be permitted to make use of the attached property, in view of the offences committed by them.

¶19

4. The question as to whether or not the petitioners have defrauded the depositors and committed the alleged offences is a matter to be considered only after trial, after necessary evidence is adduced by the prosecution. It is not disputed that among the other properties, the hotel building which is subject matter of the present petition belongs to the petitioners and is also under attachment. It is also not disputed that the said building is kept under lock and key of the respondent, without putting the building to any sort of use.

¶20

The petitioners contend that apart from the fact that because of

¶21

non-user of the building, the moveable properties contained therein for a long time, are subjected to decay and damage, some of the moveable furniture items like sofa sets etc., are being committed theft of by unscrupulous elements, as the building and the moveables therein are not attended to by anyone and they are virtually unguarded. It is also alleged that cases of theft are also booked in that regard. The petitioners, therefore, offered that if they are permitted to make use of the building, by resuming the hotel business therein, the property would be saved from damage and decay and the petitioners would undertake to deposit a reasonable amount from out of the income derived therefrom. There

¶22

cannot be any tenable objection for the said proposition, inasmuch as keeping the building under lock and key together with the furniture contained therein for a long time till the disposal of the case would not serve any purpose nor the interests of anyone. On the other hand, if the building is permitted to be put to its intended use, it would only enhance the value of the property and from out of the income derived therefrom, the petitioners would also be depositing a portion of the same to the credit of the criminal proceedings which would enure to the benefit of the depositors ultimately.

¶23

5. Under those circumstances, it is considered that the interests of the parties would be duly served by permitting the petitioners to make use of the building together with its moveable items by resuming the hotel business therein which they were previously doing and with necessary directions to the petitioners to safeguard not only the property but also the income derived therefrom.

¶24

6. In the circumstances, the respondent is directed to handover the key of the building to the petitioners and the petitioners are permitted to open the same to make use of the building together with its furniture for resuming the hotel business therein on their executing a bond for Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) with one surety in a like sum and on undertaking not to alienate or create any encumbrance over the building and the moveable properties therein in any manner whatsoever. The petitioners have filed copies of the income tax returns to show that previously they have disclosed an income of

¶25

Rs.2,49,040/- for the year 2004-2005 from the hotel business and paid a tax of Rs.87,164/-. It is stated that the building is situate in a prime locality in the heart of Guntur Municipal Corporation.

¶26

7. In the circumstances, the petitioners/A-1 and A-2 are directed to deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,000/(Rupees one lakh only) per month payable before 15^th of every succeeding month, commencing from the month of November, 2009 payable before 15^th of December, 2009, from out of the income derived from the building, to the credit of C.C.3/FD/2007. The attachment over the building and moveables therein shall, however, subsist till the disposal of the case.

¶27

8. In the result, the impugned order dismissing Crl.M.P.No.1536 of 2007 is set aside and the criminal revision case is allowed with the directions stated above.

¶28

____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J

¶29

05^th August 2009.

¶30

Lrkm.

Padarthy Satyanarayana, v. The Inspector of Police C.I.D.,Rciu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Padarthy Satyanarayana, v. The Inspector of Police C.I.D.,Rciu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Syed Habeeb Vs The State of A.P

J. Narsimulu Vs The State of A.P.

Raju Stephen Vs Smt B.Sivamma

United Phosphorus Ltd., Guntur, rep. by its Accountant and Vs M/s. Jaikisan Seeds, rep. by its Prop. Pothureddy Krishna

J.Bhagwandas Vs The State of a.P.Through S.H.O.Madannapet P.S.

Feroz Khan, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh