Partly allowed

Eda Nagi Reddy and 2 Others v. State of A.P. Rep by Pp. and Another

Telangana HC15 Nov 2011CRLP/8760/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash proceedings for cheating and forgery, the court held that repacking old products to pass them off as new attracted criminal liability. However, alias government orders were deemed inappropriate for consideration in this writ forum.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of proceedings against the 3rd petitioner/A3; dismissal of the petition in other respects.

Eda Nagi Reddy and 2 Others Vs State of A.P. Rep by… — Cheating and Forgery | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU

¶2

CRIMINAL PETITION No.8760 of 2008

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The petitioners 1 to 3/A1 to A3 are accused of offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 I.P.C. A1 is Sales Officer and A2 is in-charge of the Branch of M/s.T.Stanes and Company Limited, located at Guntur. A3 is Senior Sales Manager of the said company at Hyderabad. It is alleged that after sending e-mail to A3, A1 and A2 were repacking No.7 Micro nutrients in the godown, when the officers along with the mediators, raided the godown. It is the prosecution case that Micro nutrients manufactured in the years 2004, 2005 and 2006 and other years were being repacked in new inner and outer polythene bags with new batch No.15 and manufacturing date as June, 2008. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that repacking of the Micro nutrients was undertaken by A1 and A2 because of rains when old bags became wetted. It is further contended by the petitioners’ counsel that even if the allegations in the charge sheet and the mediators report are taken on their face value, they do not attract ingredients of Sections 420

¶5

and 468 I.P.C. It is further contended that subsequent to filing of the charge sheet, Commissioner of Agriculture, by proceedings dated 13.11.2008, dropped action against the petitioners under Fertilizer Control Order 1985, on the ground that analysis reports disclose that the Micro nutrients were in accordance with original specifications. In my opinion, proceedings of the Commissioner of Agriculture, dated 13.11.2008, cannot be looked into in this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. because, it is for the petitioners/accused to file the same before the Magistrate and prove the same together with filing of the alleged analysis reports.

¶6

2. Though the accused did not offer the repacked Micro nutrients to any ryots and no ryot complained against the accused, the repacking exercise was made by the accused for the purpose of offering the same to ryots for sale. As per the mediators report, even though old packets contained rate at Rs.405/-, repacked packets contained rate at Rs.580/- per packet. From the labels contained on the new packets, it is clear that the accused intended to sell old and wetted product by repacking the same as if it was manufactured in June 2008, even though the products were manufactured in the years 2004, 2005 and 2006. New batch No.15 is printed on the new packages as if it was a brand new product of Micro

¶7

nutrients. Having regard to the above facts mentioned in the mediators report, it cannot be said that there is no triable case in this crime.

¶8

3. But, insofar as A3 is concerned, he was not at the scene of repacking at Guntur. He has absolutely no participation in the alleged cheating by way of repacking. The only allegation in the charge sheet is to the effect that A2 sent e-mail to A3 informing the proposed exercise. There is nothing on record to show what was the reaction of A3 for the said e-mail. Therefore, in any event, impleading of A3 in this case is wholly unnecessary.

¶9

4. In the result, the Criminal Petition is partly allowed quashing proceedings in CC.No.563 of 2008, on the file of IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Guntur, insofar as the 3^rd petitioner/A3 is concerned; and the Criminal Petition is partly dismissed in other respects.

¶10

__________________________________ JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU

¶11

Dt:15.11.2011 ysk

¶12

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU

¶13

CRIMINAL PETITION No.8760 of 2008

¶14

Dt:15.11.2011

¶15

ysk

Eda Nagi Reddy and 2 Others v. State of A.P. Rep by Pp. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Eda Nagi Reddy and 2 Others v. State of A.P. Rep by Pp. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Puttam Chinna Gurava Reddy (A-1), Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Public Prosecutor

Shaik Sardar, Vs The State of a.P., through Superintendent Central Prison

Vadlamudi Lakshminarayana, (A3) Vs The State of A.P.

Puvvadi Tirupathaiah, Vs Adusumilli Lakshmi Narasimha Rao

Dudela Ramesh Goud, Vs The State through the Asst. Commissioner of Police

Jajjaila Anjaiah, Vs The State of A.P.