The Single Judge dismissed the criminal petition seeking anticipatory bail for the petitioner, who faced arrest in a money circulation case. The court held that the pendency of investigation and the quantum of money involved precluded bail.
Petition for grant of anticipatory bail dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY
Criminal Petition No.8631 of 2012
ORDER:
A complaint came to be lodged by Ch.Divakarbabu in the name of Corporate Frauds Watch alleging that Nmart Retail is indulging in money circulation scheme in violation of R.B.I Act, 1934. Nmart collected Rs.5,500/- each from nearly 20,000 members in Andhra Pradesh on the assurance of providing various incentives which are practically impossible. The Nmart company is luring the public to take membership on the assurance of quick and easy money. Basing on the said complaint, a case in Crime No.440 of 2011 came to be registered by S.H.O., Pattabhipuram P.S. The petitioner apprehending arrest in the said crime approached the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur for grant of anticipatory bail. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, came to the conclusion that the petitioner does not deserve for grant of anticipatory bail and thereby, proceeded to dismiss the application, by order dated 27-11-2012. The relevant portion of the order needs to be noted and it is thus:-
“ In view of the directions given by the Principal District Judge, Ongole and the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, the petitioner has to execute bond to the satisfaction of concerned Station House Officer. In such case, there is a possibility of arrest of the accused. In fact, in the earlier order, I have clearly discussed about entire material in Crl.M.P.No.1960 of 2012 as to how the alleged corporate fraud was committed by the petitioner and other accused. If a person who is guilty of alleged corporate fraud is enlarged on pre-arrest bail, it is difficult for the investigating agency to complete the investigation, since there is a possibility of influencing the witnesses and possibility of
falsification of accounts, etc. Mere granting bail by the Principal District Judge, Ongole and the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada is not a ground for grant of prearrest bail, unless the conditions laid down by the Honourable Apex Court in the decisions referred supra are satisfied. The offence is very grave allegedly involving crores of rupees of public money and that too, there is a possibility of committing similar offence, in the event of enlarging the petitioner on prearrest bail……………
In the result, the petition is dismissed.”
The petitioner being unsuccessful before the learned Sessions Judge in securing anticipatory bail approached this Court by filing the instant application.
3. Heard Sri S.Niranjan Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondentState.
4. Sri S.Niranjan Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the membership fee collected by Nmart (a retail store of New Look Retails Private Limited) is not a deposit since a member is allowed to purchase the goods worth of Rs.5,500/apart from securing various benefits such as forty eight purchase vouchers worth of Rs.220/- each spreading over forty eight months. In a way, his contention is the business activity does not come within the purview of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978. Learned counsel would further contend that specified goods have been made available to the customers at a cheaper rate since the company procures the same from the manufacturers directly and whatever profit the company derives is being disseminated to the customers by way of extending various benefits. A further contention has been advanced by the learned counsel that the petitioner hails
from a respectable family with good antecedents and he is recipient of the Best Chief Managing Director award for the year 2011, Bharat Ratna Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Award, Honorary Chairman, International Human Rights Association (Asia Region), Member of Task Force (Ministry of Consumer for Food and Public Distribution), Government of India.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the scheme floated by Nmart (a retail store of New Look Retails Private Limited) appears to be attractive but on close scrutiny of it, the main object is to collect Rs.5,500/- from each member and appropriate major part of the said amount. As on this day, Nmart enrolled 4,25,522 members in Andhra Pradesh and 10,48,576 members all over the country and thereby collected huge amounts and subsequently, closed most of the retail shops. The scheme ultimately is for the benefit of the company and the members are the losers. Learned Public Prosecutor explained how the scheme ultimately ends in favour of the company.
6. It is brought to my notice during the course of hearing that the petitioner obtained Transit bail in Crime No.154 of 2012 of Kandukur Town from the court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 24th Court, Borivali, Mumbai and failed to appear before the concerned court and consequently N.B.W came to be issued against him by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 24th Court, Borivali, Mumbai. Various intricacies of the scheme floated by Nmrt are required to be examined during the course of investigation. Huge amount has been collected by Nmart from the depositors. Most of the shops came to be closed and the benefits the company promised have not been honoured. The petitioner is the Chairman and Managing Director of Nmart. In view of the pendency of investigation and the quantum of
amount involved in the case, the petitioner does not deserve for grant of anticipatory bail.
7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
_____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J
Dt.05-01-2013 RAR
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in money circulation scheme case.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ch.Divakarbabu
State through S.P.P.
B.SESHASAYANA REDDY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
