Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
P.Srinivasa Rao vs State Of Ap on 17 July, 2019
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU
CRIMINAL PETITION No.3232 of 2019
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/Accused Nos.1 to 3 under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to grant anticipatory bail, in Crime No.89 of 2015 of II Town Police Station, Srikakulam. The offences alleged are under Sections 406, 420 of IPC and Section 5 of the APPDFE Act, 1999.
Heard, Sri V. Srinivasulu, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent- State.
The learned counsel for the petitioners took pains to explain the facts to show that the petitioners are not at all connected with the crime. It is his contention that they are the Directors of the company called Glow Fin Farms and Villas Ltd. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the said company was closed on 31.01.2013 and later another company called Venkata Lakshmi Ganapathi Farms and Villas Ltd. (for short VLG Farms & Villas Ltd.) was established on 13.02.2013. Learned counsel submits that the deposits if any made by the complainant and others are in the said company (VLG). He submits that the deposits were collected by people who used to work for the earlier company. He relies upon a publication made wherein one of the officers was dismissed from service and the public were cautioned that as he committed fraud and misappropriated money, the public were directed not to deal with him any further. Learned counsel also filed additional material papers to show that after 2013 the company called VLG Farms & Villas Ltd., has been dealing with the complainant. Therefore, the petitioners are not liable at all. Learned counsel for the petitioners prays for anticipatory bail.
Learned Public Prosecutor submits that although the crime was registered in the year 2015, till date the same has not come any conclusion as A.1 to A.3 and A.5 have absconded. He submits that as a part of the scheme the earlier company was disbanded and a new company was found. From a reading of the complaint itself, it is clear that the Directors of the second company assured them that the money deposited by them in the earlier company would also be refunded. Learned Public Prosecutor also points out that there are common Directors between the earlier company and the present company also. He submits that this is a part of scheme to default the amount collected from investors and that is why the crime has been registered under APPDFE Act, 1999. He also submits that about 38 witnesses were examined. Therefore, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail.
This Court after hearing both the learned counsel notices that Singamsetti Srinivasa Rao, who worked in the earlier company is shown as a Director in the second company. The said Srinivasa Rao is admittedly dismissed from the services of the Glowfin Forms Limited. Other than the public notice that is supposedly published, no action appears to have been taken against the said Srinivasa Rao, who is accused of misappropriating money. If he had actually misappropriated money, a police complaint should not have been filed and prosecution should have been initiated. The mere fact that the publication has been made will not absolve the accused. The said Srinivasa Rao is shown as one of the Directors in new company that has been formed. Therefore, there appears to be sufficient strength in the submissions made by the learned Public Prosecutor that the new company is merely a continuation of the earlier company and to avoid their liability, a new identity has been created and a new company has been registered.
Cases of this nature whereby innocent public are being attracted are quite high. These cases have an impact on the society. Economic offences should be treated as a separate breed of cases as held by the Supreme Court. In that view of the matter, as the petitioners have successfully avoided arrest for the last two years, this Court is of the opinion that they are not entitled to an anticipatory bail as prayed for.
In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this criminal petition shall stand closed.
__________________________ D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU, J Date: 17.07.2019 PGR