VEERAPPANENI RAVIKANTH Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is accused of offences punishable under Sections 420 and 467 IPC in Cr.No.144 of 2011 of C.I.D. Police Station, Hyderabad. THE said case is being investigated by Regional Crime Investigation Unit of Rajahmundry of C.I.D. THE accused is stated to have opened a current account in the name of J.S.W. Steels using a forged document at Andhra Bank, Sirigindalapadu Branch, Rampachodavaram Mandal, East Godavari District. THE said current account was opened in the name of J.S.W. Steel Limited. THE petitioner is also stated to have received 3.11 crores from Bhavin Steels, Mumbai through RTGS into that account and later transferred some amount to other banks at Chennai and withdrew some amount. Ultimately Andhra Bank received letter from JSW Steel Limited, Mumbai stating that they have not authorized anybody to open current account and that authorization letter produced for opening the account is a forged letter. On the report given by Manager of Andhra Bank, Sirigindalapadu Branch, the case was registered by C.I.D., Hyderabad.

(2.) WHILE so, Director of Bhavin Steel Private Limited, Mumbai gave report to the Senior Inspector of Police, Borivali Police Station, Mumbai alleging offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 469 and 471 IPC on the ground that they were cheated to the extent of Rs.3,11,85,050/- by RTGS transfer into the account of JSW Steel Limited with Andhra Bank in Andhra Pradesh. On the basis of that report, case in Cr.No.489 of 2011 was registered in Borivali Police Station of Mumbai.

(3.) NONE of the contingencies under either clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c) exists in the present case. Simply because the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kakinada which is a designated Court for C.I.D. cases in East Godavari District entertained remand report of the Investigating Officer when the accused was produced before the Magistrate after his arrest, it cannot be contended that since the Magistrate had applied his/ her mind to facts of that case and ordered remand of the accused to judicial custody, it should be deemed that the Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences herein. Noting facts relating to the case and about the accused at the time of remand under Section 167 Cr.P.C. cannot tantamount to taking cognizance of the offences mentioned therein against the accused under Section 190 Cr.P.C. Therefore, primary requirement for invoking Section 186 Cr.P.C. is absent in this case, in the sense that there was no taking cognizance of the offences against the accused by any Court or Magistrate for the purpose of enquiry or trial. When both the' cases at C.I.D. RCIU, Rajahmundry and at Borivali (West) Police Station, Mumbai are pending investigation, Section 186(b) Cr.P.C. cannot applied herein.