Allowed

Manjunathan Srinivas v. The State of a.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor

Telangana HC3 Jul 2012CRLA/746/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal by accused against conviction under Section 5 of A.P. Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999. Apex Court upheld conviction despite time-barred claim defense, reduced sentence to time already undergone, and cancelled bail.

What did the court decide?

Conviction confirmed; sentence reduced to period already undergone; fine and default sentence retained; bail bonds cancelled.

Manjunathan Srinivas Vs The State of a.P., rep. by its… — Money Laundering | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO Crl.A.No.746 of 2005

¶2

JUDGMENT:

¶3

This Criminal Appeal is filed by the accused aggrieved by the judgment dated 22-03-2005 passed in C.C.No.58 of 2003 on the file of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

¶4

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:

¶5

The accused is the Managing Director of M/s. Vijaya Mithra Financers at Hyderabad. The complainant and his two daughters by name Geetali Som and Gautami Som deposited an amount of Rs.4,65,000/- with the accused by way of FDRs, Promissory notes etc. The accused was paying interest on the said amount at 22% per annum upto August, 2000 and from September onwards, he started evading the same. The complainant approached the accused for return of the entire principal amount for which the accused gave a cheque bearing No.639998 for an amount of Rs.50,000/- and requested to wait for fifteen days for payment of the balance amount. When the cheque was presented for payment by the defacto complainant, it was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. Therefore, the defacto complainant filed a private complaint and the same was registered as Crime No.293 of 2001 and after due investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 420 of IPC and Section 5 of A.P. Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999 (for short ‘the Act’). The accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried.

¶6

3. The prosecution, in order to prove the guilt of the accused, examined PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-10. On defence side, no evidence was adduced. The trial Court, after evaluating the entire evidence on record, found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 5 of the Act, however, found him not guilty of the offence under Section 420 of IPC. Accordingly, the trial court convicted the accused for the offence under Section 5 of the Act and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and also

¶7

to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo imprisonment for three months. Aggrieved thereby, the accused preferred the present appeal.

¶8

4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-accused mainly argued that the trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that the entire case was regarding a time barred claim which was a pointer to the effect that as the defacto complainant lost the opportunity to stake his claim, he preferred the private complaint under the provisions of the Act. He further contended that the deposits under Exs.P-1 and P-2 were made on

¶9

14-11-1996, and the deposits under Exs.P-3 and P-4 were made on 15-11-1996, and the due date of maturity of those deposits (FDRs) is on 14-11-1997 and 15-11-1997 respectively, but the Act came into force on 01-11-1999 and therefore, the provisions of the Act have no application to the facts of the case on hand, as the Act has no retrospective effect. Therefore, the judgment of the trial Court finding the accused guilty of the offence under Section 5 of the Act, is not correct and it is liable to be set aside.

¶10

5. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor, while supporting the judgment of the trial Court, sought for dismissal of the appeal.

¶11

6. Now the point for consideration is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 5 of the Act? and whether the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court is sustainable? POINT:

¶12

7. Originally charges under Sections 420 of IPC and 5 of the Act were framed against the accused, but the trial Court, after evaluating the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and considering the documents in Exs.P-1 to P-10, found him guilty of the offence under Section 5 of the Act and not guilty of the offence under Section 420 of IPC.

¶13

8. The defacto complainant was examined as PW-1. His

¶14

evidence discloses that he made deposits under Exs.P-1 to P-4 with M/s. Vijaya Mithra Financers, and even after the date of maturity also, the accused, being the Managing Director of the firm, did not repay the said amount. It is also the evidence of PW-1 that the accused paid some amounts, but he has not repaid the balance amounts due to him under the deposits.

¶15

The amounts paid under Exs.P-5 to P-8, promotes, cannot be said to be deposits made by PW-1 in M/s Vijaya Mithra Financers since the accused received the said amounts in his personal capacity and the said pronotes were executed by him agreeing to repay with interest at 22% per annum.

¶16

9. On a combined reading of the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and the documents in Exs.P-1 to P-4, the amounts under Exs.P-1 to P- 4 were matured prior to the introduction of the Act and since the amount was not repaid to PW-1 by the accused as the Managing Director of the Firm, the provisions of the Act are applicable to the facts of the present case. Therefore, the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence under Section 5 of the Act, and thus the trial Court rightly found him guilty of the offence under Section 5 of the Act and accordingly, convicted thereunder.

¶17

10. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant sought for indulgence of the Court to take a lenient view while submitting that the appellant has wind up the business and has no livelihood as on this day and that he was in jail for more than 42 days.

¶18

11. While taking into consideration the gravity of the subject matter and the plea of the defence, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of three years is reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by the accused.

¶19

12. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is disposed of confirming the conviction of the appellant-accused for the offence under Section 5 of the Act, and reducing the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of three years to that of the period of imprisonment already undergone by him,

¶20

while retaining the fine amount and default sentence. The bail bonds of the appellant-accused shall stand cancelled.

¶21

_______________ K.S. APPA RAO, J Date: 03-07-2012 YCR

Manjunathan Srinivas v. The State of a.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manjunathan Srinivas v. The State of a.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor

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

V.Krishna Mohan Vs The Project Director

Vetti Sivaiah Vs Malle Raja Reddy , Bombay Raja

Mirza Wasil Baig, Minor. Vs Mirza Ismjail Baig

Metri Gangonda(A-3) Vs State of Andhra Pradesh Rep.by its Public Prosecutor

S. Indrasena Reddy, Vs State, Rep. by Pp., and Another

Devarapu Venkateswarlu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh