Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Yarram Gade Annapoorna vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 25 April, 2025
APHC010184992025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3369]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3902/2025
Between:
Yarram @ Gade Annapoorna ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED
AND
The State Of Andhra ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT
Pradesh Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:
1. KRISHNA SAI K Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following:
Order:
[[ The Criminal Petition, u/Sec.482 of B.N.S.S is filed on behalf of the petitioner/A3 to grant anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.334/2024 of Pattibhipuram Police Station, Guntur District.
2. A case has been registered against the petitioner herein and others for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC, Section 5 of Andhra Pradesh Protection of Depositors of 2 Financial Establishments Act, 1999 and Sections 3 & 4 of Andhra Pradesh Chit Funds Act, 1971.
3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the petitioner/A3 and two other accused conducted unauthorized chit business and collected huge amounts from several persons. Upon the written report given by defacto complainant who joined in the alleged chit business run by petitioner/A3 and others, and the petitioner and others absconded by collecting huge amounts from various persons.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the offence under Section 420 of IPC, Section 5 of Andhra Pradesh Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999 and Sections 3 & 4 of Andhra Pradesh Chit Funds Act, 1971 were registered against the accused and even the role of the petitioner has not been mentioned in the report. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Section 5 of Andhra Pradesh Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999 is not attracted to the present facts of the case. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on Order passed by this Court in Crl.P.No.259 of 2023, dated 03.02.2023, wherein this Court was pleased to refer the Order dated 19.01.2023 in 3 V.Sreenivasa Reddy and others vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others in Crl.P.No.9573 of 2022 in a petition filed to quash a complaint in relation to offences under Section 420 of IPC and Section 5 of Andhra Pradesh Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999, wherein it is observed that:
"10. The Act is applicable in relation to non- payment of deposits made by victims in financial establishments. Section 2(b) of the Act defines deposit as:
"deposit means the deposit of a sum of money either in lumpsum or installments made with a financial establishment for a fixed period, for interest or return in any kind."
Similarly, financial establishment is defined in Section 2(c) in the following manner:
"Financial establishment means any person or group of individuals accepting deposit under any scheme or arrangement or in any other manner but does not include a corporation or a co- operative society owned or controlled by any state Government or the Central Government or a banking company as defined under clause (c) of Section 5 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (Central Act 10 of 1949).4
11. The definition of deposit under Section 2(b) requires that the deposit be made for a fixed period with interest or return in any kind. In the case of a chit transaction, the payment of money in the form of a deposit is not for a fixed period as the money paid by the chit subscriber is returned upon the subscriber being declared as the prized subscriber. As the time frame within which a chit subscriber is declared as a prized subscriber, is not a fixed period, it would have to be held that chit subscriptions and subscribers of chit funds cannot be treated as victims falling within the ambit of the Act."
In view thereof, while disposing of the petition, it is made clear that the petitioners are entitled to the benefit under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. and the concerned police shall follow strictly guidelines given by the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar1, on appropriate relief being obtained with regard to accusation under Section 5 of the APPDFE Act, 1999.
In view of the principles laid down in the decision, the appreciations of Section „5‟ of the Act is downfall. 1 (2014) 8 SCC 273 5
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, after arguing for some time, has confined his argument to the extent of protecting the petitioner herein from the coercive action by the police on the ground that the offences alleged are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years and prays this Court to direct the police to follow the procedure as contemplated under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no punishment is mentioned to the Sections 3 & 4 of Andhra Pradesh Chit Funds Act, 1971 as it is a procedural law.
5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposes the bail on the ground that the investigation has not been completed.
6. Heard. Perused the material on record.
7. The offences alleged are punishable with imprisonment less than seven years, considering the involvement of amounts in the above said crime, this Court directs the investigation officer to follow the procedure as contemplated under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, scrupulously, as per the guidelines enunciated in Arnesh 6 Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and another2. The petitioner shall make herself available for investigation as and when required and that she shall not cause any threat, inducement or promise to the prosecution witnesses. The petitioner shall appear before the Station House Office concerned, as and when required.
8. With the above directions, the Criminal Petition is disposed of.
_____________________ T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J 25.04.2025 SDP 2 (2014) 8 SCC 273 7 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO Criminal Petition No.3902 of 2025 Dated:25.04.2025 SDP