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

Or.39, rule 7 of C.P.C - Petition for preservation of properties belongs to the petitioner - as the Govt. is going to demolish the building in road widening scheme - Or.39, rule 1 made absolute against the petitioner infavour of the respondent - Trial court allowed the Petition wrongly - their lordships held that In a suit for injunction, though the question of possession as on the date of filing of the suit is most relevant, there may be other ancillary and incidental questions as to the conduct of the parties before the Court. The concept of possession in law should take in its spectrum all rights, liabilities, immunities and claims vis-`-vis the property which is said to be in possession. When the Court recorded a prima facie finding that Gayatri bai is in possession, she was also in law entitled to take advantage of that presumption. Unless the defendant properly pleads and proves at the earliest stage regarding any such movables or immovables attached to the immovable property, no defendant can be heard of saying that his belongings were lying in the disputed property. - 2015 A.P.(2001) MSKLAWREPORTS

<CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - - Or.39 Rr.1 and 2 - - Or.39 R.7 - - Suit for possession - - Interim injuction granted was made absolute - - Later on defendant filed a petition to remove and keep in safe custody certain movables laying in the disputed premises alleging that those belong to him and may get spoiled in case of demolition of the building for road widening - - Lower Court ordered handing over such articles after preparing necessary list to the respondent/defendant.         Scope and ambit  of Or.39 R.7 and when the power thereunder to be exercised - - Laid down. >HELD:         Order 39 Rule 7 CPC empowers the Court to make an order for detention, preservation and inspection of any property which is the subject matter of the suit or as to which any question may arise in the suit.  The submission that the power under Rule 7 can be exercised only in respect of the subject matter is therefore not well founded. The...
Read more

Writ - praying to declare that explanation to Section 6 of the amendment Act of 39 of 2005, Explanation: for the purpose of this Section partition means any partition made by execution of a deed of partition duly registered under the Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908) or partition effected by a decree of a court as unconstitutional and the same is liable to be struck down and etc; -2015 KAR(2015) msklawreports

"(i) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 is prospective or retrospective in operation? (ii) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 applies to daughters born prior to 17.6.1956? (iii) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 applies to daughters born after 17.6.1956 and prior to 9.9.2005? (iv) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 applies only to daughters born after 9.9.2005? (v) Whether the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Vaishali Ganorkar is per in curium of Gandori Koteshwaramma and others?"   In addressing an argument that the Explanation to  Section 6  clearly provides that partition means any partition made by execution of a deed duly registered under the  Registration Act , 1908...
Read more

Cancellation of Bail with out completing the investigation by police about threat on defacto complainant , is a premature one - - 2015 TELANGANA & AP.MSKLAWREPORTS

the allegation of defacto complainant is that some unknown persons on behalf of the accused,  even though they were in judicial custody, started threatening him with dire consequences if he does not come forward to compromise with them  in the case and in view of such threat he lodged report and consequently Cr.No.705 of 2014 was registered under Sections 506 and 507 IPC. Apart from it, the complainant also narrated that some of the accused were involved in other cases and rowdy sheet was opened against A1. The lower Court cancelled the bail taking the above allegations into consideration. It must be noted that the threat allegations are under investigation and the persons who allegedly threatened the defacto complainant and the connection of accused with them if any has to be found out only after through investigation by the concerned police.  However, before that exercise being completed, the lower Court came to a premature conclusion about the correctness of the...
Read more