High Court of Telangana dismissed a criminal revision challenging the dismissal of a discharge petition in a criminal breach of trust case. The court upheld the Sessions Judge's refusal to discharge the petitioner.
Criminal Revision dismissed; impugned order dated 19.09.2024 confirmed.
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.
HIGHCOURT FOR THt' STATEOF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD
FRIDAY,THETHIRTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSANDAND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLESRI JUSTICEE'v' VENUGOPAL
CriminalRevlsionCase No1051, ot2024
Criminalrevision filed uncler Sections a38(1) r/w.Sec.528,438 & MZ,of 528 of BNSS, aggrievedby the order dated :rgOg'2024 passed in Crl'M'P'No'3570of 2024 in C.C.No-24of 2OiI7 on the file of the Sessions Judge at Hyderabad'
3#iTir.rradaLalithaRau @ LalithaKumari Rau' W/o' T' RaiaRau' Age67 years, occHorr"*,f",'""nZJHN"'raaoZ+'N{ E'S ColonyTrimulgherry' Secunderabad ..petitioner/Accused No.4.No.4.
..petitioner/Accused No.4.No.4.
AND
The Stateof Telangana,itep by the Public Prosecutor' High Court for the Stateof TelanganaHYderabad ...Respondent/ComPlainant'
...Respondent/ComPlainant'
IANO:1 0F 2024
PetitionunderSection 438 (1) r/w ' 528 of 528 of BNSS' prayingthat in the circumstancesstated in the affidavit filed in support of the' petition' the High Court maybe pleased tt;;;v;iil;tth:t^P-t:t::dingsagainst the petitioner before the MetropolitanSessionls-l'";; rn C C:" ?4ot 20\7 including the petitioner ;;";;;'".pendingthe disposil of this CriminaiRevision'
Counselfor the Petitioner:Sri K'Mohan'
Counsel forthe Respondent: The Public Prosecutor
The Court madethe following: ORDER
7
THE HONOURABLE SRI WSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL c S RTVI ION CASENo. 10 sl 0F 2o24
OR D ER:
The present Criminal Revision Case is fiied against the order dated 19.09.2024 in Crl.M.p.No.3 S7O of 2024 in C.C.No.24 of 2017 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.
.- -'.1
7
EW'J ClLR.c.No.lo5loI 2024
moneyabsconded'Basing on the complaint made by thede-facto complainant' acase wasregistered 1n Cr.No.299of 2OO9 under Sections 406' 42O t/w 34 of IPC andSections3 and 5 of the And'hra Pradesh of Financial protection of DePositors file ofCCS, DD, EstablishmentsAct' 1999 on the Hyderabad.After comPletionof investigation, charge sheetwas hled against A1 to A4 and the samewas numberedas C'C'No'24of 2Ol7 '
allegedoffences'
5 Uponperusalof oral and documenta-ryevidence on record,the learned Sessions Judge' Hyderabad categoricallyheld that the petitioner/,{4 being a DirectorofJagadambaLogistics&Infra Projects
3
)
EWJ CrLR.C.No. to, t oJ 2024
Limited published pamphlets and advertised about their schemes accordingly ail the accused lured the general public and induced them to deposit huge amounts by offering a guaranteed interest every month on the money invested by depositors ald further they have given an undertaking on 100 rupees stamp paper mentioning the deposits as loan and share certihcates of the company and also gave cheques and promissory notes as securit5r for their deposits and collected huge amounts to the tune of Rs. 16 crores, so unless and until the full-fledged trial is completed, the facts would not come to light. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of olfence and submissions of the learned public prosecutor, the learned Sessions Judge, Hyderabad opined that the petitioner tailed to establish that she was entitled to be discharged from the alleged offence and further opined that the petition was devoid of merits and accordingly,
4 EW,J crLR.c.No'1O51oi 2024
dismissedthe same' Aggrievedby the same' the presentRevlsron'
6.l,earned counsel for the petitioner "t""":"1-::. theorder passed by the learned SessionJudge rs contra-rJrto law and the material on the record and failedto consider that the petitioner was only an employeearrd admittedly' none of her propertieswere attachedor shown as to be from the proceeds of the alegedcrime and as such' the sameestablishes that thepetitionerhas not misappropriatedany amounts andas such, the Petitioner ought to be discharged' Evenas Perthe chargesheet, itis the caseof the respondentthat the petitioner had only acted as per the directionsof the Directors of the Company and as such,she cannot be made vicariouslyliable for their allegedcriminalitres' more so when the Comp-?lJr-h1: itself notbeen made an accused'
-t
5
c.t n. c. ^ro. t o s t o1E#i{
Z. He further contended that a mere reading of the complaint ald the charge sheet would establish that initially the petitioner was being arrayed as art accused as she was alleged to be a Director of the Compaay but thereafter, in the charge sheet there is no evidence to corroborate the same besides a ,visiting card, and as such, when there was no offence made out against the petitioner, who is an employee, she ought to have been discharged on that ground alone. He further contended that the findings of the learned Sessions Judge, Hyderabad that the petitioner, being a Director of M/s'Jagadamba Logistics ald Infra projects Ltd. is contrary to the charge sheet as even otherwase, the learned judge had earlier mentioned that the petitioner was directed by accused Nos.1 and 2 to publish the pamphlets arrd no documents issued by the petitioner has been filed and the purported share certificate and deposit certificate are not signed by the petitioner ald admittedly the amounts were collected by the-
i
-r",^
EW.J C;i'LR-c.No'10 5' of 2024
6
Companyand therefore' there is no entrustmentof any moneyto the Petitioner'who was an employee' He furthercontendedthat the Petitioner has to undergo tria-leven though there is no evidence against the Petitioner,wouldamounttopunishingthePetitioner by participatingin the process of Trial wlnen prima- faciethete is no evidence on record to warrantthe same.Hence, seeks to al'low the Revision'
g. On perusal ofthe record reveals that the companyi'e',M/s'Jagadamba Metro Express& FinanceLimitedwasregisteredwithRegistrarof Companiesand later changedthe name as Jagadamba
f',.*a:'- --
7
)
crlR.c.No.lost oJ #;
Metro Express & Logistics Limited ald uitimately the company also known as Jagadamba Logistics & Intra Projects Limited and the Board of Directors A1 and A,2 along with others directed the petitioner/,4.4 and Malager and others to publish pamphlets and advertise about their schemes accordingly, all the accused lured the general public and induced them to deposit huge amounts by offering a gua-ranteed interest every month on the money invested by depositors and further they have given an undertaking on I OO rupees stamp paper mentioning the deposits as loan arrd share certificates of the company and a_lso gave cheques and promissory notes AS security for their deposits and collected huge amounts to the tune of Rs. 16 crores.
EW,J ctLR.C.No'1o51oJ 2024
8
schemesaccordingly'all the accused lured the general publicand induced them to deposit huge amounts by offeringa guaranteed'interest every month on the rnoneyinvestedbY dePositors. Further' theY have grven on100 rupees stamPPaPer alr undertaking mentioningthe depositsas loan and share certificates of thecompany and alsogavecheques and promissory notesas security for thgir deposits and collected huge amountsto the tune of Rs'16 crores' so unless and untilthe fulr-fledgedtrial is completedthe real facts wouldnot come to light' So' consideringthe facts and circumstancesof the case' nature of offence and submissionsof thelearned AssistantPublic Prosecutor,-the learned SessionsJudge' Hyderabad categoricallyopined that the petitioner failed to establishthat she is liable to be dischargedfrom the allegedoffence.
't
9
c r L R. c. No. r o s t oJE;tr;{
to interfere with thr *o"ted order passed by the Iearned Sessions ,. t"otrabad as it does not suffer from infirmity.to"' ,r illegaliry or irregularity.
Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
sd/. T. VIJAY KUMAR PUTY REGI STRAR
/ /TRUE3]PY/ /
CTION OFFICER 1 Ih"SessionsJudge ar Hyderabad. V j ffi 38,i3,i'J 5,l1sn:"Advocate IoPUCI rc ['rosecutor' High Cou 4. r wo CD cooies. rt Buildings, Hyderabad. ffil6ou-r)
To,
JCK/PSL \qr
',:
HIGHCOURT
DATED:13/12/2024
ORDER
CRLRC.No.10 57 of 2024
-. 1t :-: ij.r^....
,'
I
02 SEF M ri
-//
,:/
<br>
Dismissing the Criminal Revision case
+"{1 Ir,---i - iattP
Mirrada Lalitha Rau @ Lalitha Kumari Rau
The State of Telangana
Sri Justice E.V. Venugopal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
