Dismissed

Chellaiah Mari Muthu, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC22 Feb 2024CRLP/1705/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail for a manager accused of cheating and misappropriation. The court held that since the accused was absconding and a prima facie case was established, bail was not fit.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Petition seeking anticipatory bail is dismissed; the petitioner cannot absolve liability by shifting responsibility on a supervisor.

Chellaiah Mari Muthu, Vs The State of Telangana — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

132151

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶3

THURSDAY, THE TWENry SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FOUR^-'

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI

¶6

CRIMIN ALP ETlTION NO: { 705 0F 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

rs,r occu patio n pvt .ff 'l#: sfl L I$t r Yl S*f; il 5 [*il""l #inllo:fl 1,_"S "

¶9

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana,, Rep. by its public prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad

¶12

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶13

Petition under Section.43B of .Cr.p.C praying that in the ,circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds or ciiririnli'petition, the High court may be pleased to enraroe the petitionei/A;;;J;;;;"nting bair in connection with Cr.No.18 of 2024 on-th. tit" "i iU*nirp"t.# E.S]'n"ng"r"ody District.

¶14

I.A. N :1OF 2024

¶15

sKM Egg Products Reo. itsAuthorised Signatory, Kariaram Karimuttu, Manager, 133, 13311, Gandhiji Road, Erode, f"mifnlJr.-'''^''-"'

¶16

..lmpleaded petition/defacto complainanU Res.2

¶17

The State of Telangana,, Rep. by its public prosecutor, High Court, . Hyderabad.

¶18

tion^pvt

¶19

'^E*?i&1X, Hil #Jj!t a fi3,:S:illf, : f8s,l"i:;:il:i"il??,_.r.?i8t ia

¶20

...petitioner/Respondents/Accused

¶21

Petition under se_ction 4g2 0f. cr.p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Ground" or cirrf,inir petition,the High court may be pleased to permit the.petitioner t" i.pi""J'".'iespondent No.2 in the above above crl'P'No'1705t2024 Criminal petition.on the fire "r ini" n"".Lrl"iou.t pending disposar of the

¶22

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri GrRr BABU MARTHI, Advocate for the petitioner and the Fubric prosecutor on beharf of the sole Respondentiuo.l q,rA r\r(,vrc c{f+eoo.ed {or -tL. ge4pond.<vrt r,.rc.z -

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

¶25

THE HONOURABLE^{DR.ruSTICEG.RADHA RANI}

¶26

CRIMINAL PETITION No.l705^{OR 2024}

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section^{438 of Code of} Criminal Procedure,^{1973 (for short "Cr.P.C")seekinggrant of} anticipatory bail to the^{petitioner/Accusedin CrimeNo.l 8 of 2024 on} the file of lbrahimpatnam^{PoliceStation, Rachakonda District,} registered for the offences^{punishable underSections420 and 408 of} Indian Penal Code.

¶29

The case of the prosecution in^{brief was that on 13-01.2024at} about 15:00 hours, the Manager^{Intemal Audit of M/s SKM Egg} Products, Erode Tamilnadu^{lodged a report before the policestating} that their Company had farms^{at various placesin Tamilnadu and one} farm at Hyderabad. As an^{IntemalAuditor,he was requiredto do} surprise visits to these farms^{and similarly, afterthe last inspectionon} 14.09.2023, he made an inspection^{ot02.01.2024at Hyderabadand he} observed that there^were only^{106 trays ofEggs againstthe closing} stock shown by him^{as 26,450traysand last sale was5470 traysto} IWs. Savio Egg Centre,^{Hyderabad.He verihed the delivery challans} and approached Il4/s. Savio Egg Centre,^{Hyderabadand that they}

¶30

¶31

admitted that^{the accused actuallysold only 2.470 trays, but wantedit} to be shown^{as 5.470 trays with a promise to replenish cashfor the} balance 3000 trays^{to be transferredto Company.He found an} unaccounted^{stock of 26,344 trays and lodged a complaintagainst the} petitioner stating^{that the entire farm at Hyderabad was in the control of} the petitioner who^{alone can perpetratethis fraud. He madean intemal} audit of misappropriation^{of Rs.49,73,808/- and statedthat the figures} were tentative and^{the loss might further go up if further scrutinyof} books were made.

¶32

Basing on the said^{reporl, the Inspector of PoliceI brahimpatnam} Police Station, registered^{a case in CrimeNo. 18 of 2024 for the} offences^{punishable under Sections 420 and 408 of IndianPenal Code'}

¶33

Heard the learned counsel^{for the petitioner and learned counsel} for the respondent No.2^{who was impleadedas per the orders in} I.A.No.0l of 2024.

¶34

5 Leamed counsel for^{the petitioner submittedthat the supervisor} was entrusted with the^{dutiesof receivingeggs from all the places and} to dispatch them to^{several companiesof the consumers, the petitioner} was discharging only administrative^{duties. He was no wayconcemed}

¶35

¶36

with the receipt^{of Eggs and its distributionand also for collectionof} money. When^{the petitioner was in Tamilnadu,the police triedto} arrest him and^{prayedfor grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.}

¶37

¶38

Leamed counsel for^{the respondentNo'2 submittedthat the} petitioner being the^{Manager of the companywas abscondingsince,} the date of lodging^{the reporton 13.01.2024.he cannot absolvefrom} his liability by^{throwing the responsibilityon the supervisor, there} were inflation of sales^{and the stock was not there as per record.The} complainant after^{making preliminary enquiry, lodged the report'The} delivery challans^{were in the custody of the petitionerand he had to} account for them.^{The Investigatingofficerwould needto investigate} with regard to all these^{aspects and prayed to dismiss the petition'}

¶39

Perused the record.^{The offencesunder Sections420and 408 of} Indian Penal Code^{are punishable with imprisonmentfor less than} seven^{(7) years, as suchthe policeoughtto have issuednotice under} Section4l-ACr'P.C.But,asthepetitioner-accusedwasabsconding since the date^{of lodging FIR and was avoiding the police and was not} available for issuance^{of notice under Section + i-A Cr'p'C' ana} prima-facie a case^{wasestablished againstthe petitionerand being a}

¶40

¶41

Manager, he need to answer all these aspects, it is considered not a fit

¶42

case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶43

In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

¶44

Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶45

Sd/- C. PRAVEEN KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFlCER

To,

The XV-Metropolitan Magistrate at Rachakonda,^{lbrahimpatnam} 2. The SHO, lbrahimpatnam Police Station,^{RachakondaDist.}

¶50

Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor,^{High Court of TS Hyderabad. (OUT)} 4. One CC to SRl. GlRl BABU MARTHI^Advocate [OPUC] 5; Two CD Copies

RC FY

HIGH COURT

DATED: 22t02t2024

i4
(<br>15 I.Pfr 2024 ),
a
* {
.a-,."SPATcH EO

¶56

ORDER

¶57

CRLP.No.1ti| of 2024

¶58

CRIMINAL PETITON IS DISMISSED

¶59

8"d'[
Y'-
il{zY

Chellaiah Mari Muthu, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chellaiah Mari Muthu, v. The State of Telangana

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

Dadi Jagadesh Vs The State of Telangana

Guvva Srikanth Vs the State of Telangana

V. Radhakrishna Vs The State of Telangana

Gadipalli Ravi Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

K. Pranil Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Mohd. Ismail Vs The State of Telangana