Economic Offences Special Judge Hyd - A.P. High court quashed the complaint - Apex court held that the Special Court is empowered to try the offences under the Companies Act alongwith other Acts by virtue of a notification issued by the erstwhile Government of Andhra Pradesh dated 13.3.1981 which empowers such special Courts to try offences under specified enactments such as The Companies Act, 1956, The Income-tax Act, 1961, The Wealth-tax Act, 1957 etc., which reads as follows:-"even if such cases include offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and any other enactments, if such offences form part of the same transaction." - Thus, even if a number of persons are accused of offences under a special enactment such as 'the Companies Act and as also the IPC' in respect of the same transaction or facts and even if some could not be tried under the special enactment, it is the special court alone which would have jurisdiction to try all the offences based on the same transaction to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.- We make it clear that in the present case all the accused are liable to be tried by the special court in respect of the offences under the IPC as well as the Companies Act as alleged in the complaint. Appeals are allowed in above terms. 2015 S.C. MSKLAWREPORTS




the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at  Hyderabad
 in exercise of powers under Section 482  of  the
Code of Criminal Procedure (in short Cr.P.C.) quashed the proceedings in  CC
No. 37 of 2008 on the file of the court of the Special  Judge  for  Economic
Offences at Hyderabad insofar as the accused Nos. A4, A5,  A6,  A9  and  A10
are concerned.

the  Special
Court is empowered to try the offences under  the  Companies  Act  alongwith
other Acts by virtue of a notification issued by  the  erstwhile  Government
of Andhra Pradesh dated 13.3.1981 which empowers such special Courts to  try
offences under specified enactments such as The  Companies  Act,  1956,  The
Income-tax Act,  1961,  The  Wealth-tax  Act,  1957  etc.,  which  reads  as
follows:-

"even if such cases include  offences  punishable  under  the  Indian  Penal
Code, 1860 and any other enactments, if such offences form part of the  same
transaction."

 [vide Notification reproduced in Criminal Petition No.  5846  of  2014  The
Superintendent Of Customs Vs. Kannur Abdul Kader Mohammed  Haneefa  reported
in 2014 (310) ELT49(A.P.)]
   Thus, even if a number of persons are accused of offences  under
a special enactment such as 'the Companies Act  and  as  also  the  IPC'  in
respect of the same transaction or facts and  even  if  some  could  not  be
tried under the special enactment, it  is  the  special  court  alone  which
would  have  jurisdiction  to  try  all  the  offences  based  on  the  same
transaction to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.  We make this  observation
because at some stage in the hearing learned counsels addressed us  on  this
point.  We make it clear that in  the  present  case  all  the  accused  are
liable to be tried by the special court in respect  of  the  offences  under
the IPC as well as the Companies Act as alleged in the complaint.

    Appeals are allowed in above terms.

Popular posts from this blog

Sec.20 of C.P.C - Territorial Jurisdiction - suit for recovery of money based on Contract - As per the admitted plaint averments, the office of the defendants is located in Pargi, the offer made by the petitioner was accepted at Pargi, the contract was entered between the petitioner and the respondents at Pargi and the same was executed within the jurisdiction of the Court at Pargi.- Plaint returned with objection - as an after thought added the acceptance of contract was received at Malkajgiri - Trail court returned the plaint to file in proper court - Revision - Their Lordships held that if filing of suit is based on making of a contract, the cause of action arises at the place where the offer is accepted and if the suit is based on termination of a contract, the cause of action arises at the place where such termination order is received. Admittedly, the suit is based on making of a contract and not on termination of the contract.- dismissed the revision - 2015 Telangana & A.P. msklawreports

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

Section 5 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 read with Rule 9(1)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Rules of 1989. - Powers of Revenue Court - Petitioners are the legal heirs of Late Sri A. Penta Reddy and respondents 1 to 3 are the brothers of Penta Reddy - Petitioners claimed as Separate Property - Brothers/Respondents claimed as Joint family Property - MRO held summary enquiry and held that it is Joint family Property - No Appeal to RDO - after the lapse of 12 years filed Revision directly to Joint Collector - JC. dismissed the revision - this Writ - Their Lordships held that in the absence of any suit for Declaration of title after receiving Rule 9 notice with in 3 months, the MRO can decide the dispute summarily - since no appeal is filed nor any suit is filed in any court - the orders of MRO can not be challanged after the lapse of 12 years - dismissed the revision - -2015 Telangana & A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS