KANCHI RAJU VENKATA RAMANA Vs. STATE OF AP
LAWS(APH)-2008-7-87
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on July 21,2008

KANCHI RAJU VENKATA RAMANA Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

GOURISHETTY PRABHAKAR VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

SYED TARUJ AHMED VS. STATE OF A P [LAWS(APH)-2013-12-131] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)THIS revision case has been filed by the petitioner-A1 questioning the order dated 14. 11. 2007 passed in Crl. MP no. 1372 of 2007 in CC No. 5 of 2007 by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, registered for the offences under Sections 420, 406 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3 and 5 of A. P. Protection of depositors of Financial Establishments act, 1999.
(2.)THE learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the offence under section 5 of the Act is not attracted since the non-banking financial companies were not included in the definition of 'financial establishment' prior to the amendment Act 17 of 1999. The learned Counsel further contends that the petitioner floated the company in the year 1996 long prior to the amendment Act came into force, therefore, he is not liable to be prosecuted under section 5 of the Act. The learned Counsel also submitted that A2 in the said case filed a quash petition before this Court and the said petition was ordered quashing charge-sheet to the extent of the offence under section 5 of the Act.
(3.)THE learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 submitted that a learned single Judge of this Court in Gourishetty prabhakar v. State of A. P. , 2002 (1) ALD (Crl.) 613 = 2002 (1) ALT (Crl.) 492, considered the question of prospective or retrospective operation of the Act and held as follows :
"coming to the question of retrospectivity of the Act, in my opinion, the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner cannot be upheld. It should not be forgotten that the cause of action survives till the date petitioner repays the amount accepted as deposit or till the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed for recovery of the same. Though the deposit matured on 3. 10. 1999, cause of action to recover the amount was surviving to the complainant by the date of filing of the complaint, i. e. , 10. 11. 2001 also, i. e. , after the Act came into force. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the deposit matured before the coming into force of the Act, the provisions of Section 5 of the Act cannot be made applicable to that deposit, cannot be accepted. "

;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.