STATE Vs. G.K. MURALIKISHNA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been filed as against the order passed by the Special Judge under TNPID Act in Crl. M.P. No. 662 of 2015, dated 13.04.2015, dismissing the petition filed by the prosecution/Revision Petitioner under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C., to handover the respondents/accused, for police custody, for a period of five days for the purpose of investigation in respect of Crime No. 5 of 2015 pending on the file of the revision petitioner/police.

(2.) THE brief facts, which are necessary for deciding this revision, are as follows - -

(3.) APART from the above submissions, on merits, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the Revision Petitioner/Prosecution submitted that custody of the respondents/accused are very much essential in this case to identify the properties of the 1st accused -Company and also the properties of the other accused for attachment of the same and also to ascertain the diversion of the deposited amount and to seize the relevant vital documents pertaining to this case. The learned Public Prosecutor would further submit that the 1st accused/company has received a sum of Rs. 55,20,70,000/ - as deposit from 6,541 depositors from all over India. From the investigation so far conducted prima facie it appears that the deposited amounts were diverted by the accused persons to their other concerns; therefore, the custody of the respondents/accused persons is absolutely essential in this case to ascertain the diversion of the deposited amount; but, the Court below without considering this aspect has come to the conclusion that the Police can obtain necessary particulars about the 1st accused -company from the Registrar of Companies. Assailing the said finding of the Court below, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the certain information which are in the knowledge of the respondent/accused persons cannot be obtained from the Registrar of Companies; therefore, the reasons assigned by the Court below for denying the custody of the respondent/accused persons to the Police is not correct.