THE STATE OF TELANGANA Vs. NOWHERA SHAIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Petition, under Sec. 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed by the petitioner-State of Telangana, requesting to cancel the regular bail granted to the respondent-accused, vide order, dtd. 24/10/2018, passed in Crl.M.P.No.3229 of 2018 in Crime No.170 of 2018 of PS CCS, DD, Hyderabad, by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

(2.) Heard the submissions of Sri C.Pratap Reddy, learned Public Prosecutor for the state of Telangana representing the petitioner- State and perused the record. A memo, vide USR No.92248 of 2018 was filed by the petitioner-State of Telangana, which reflects that the respondent-accused refused to take the notice issued in this case. Under these circumstances, notice on the respondent- accused is held sufficient.

(3.) The learned Public Prosecutor for the State of Telangana would submit that the respondent-accused, being the Managing Director of 'Heera Gold Exim Limited', collected huge deposits from number of victims with a promise to pay exorbitant rate of interest on the said deposits. As per the Memorandum of Association and Articles of Association of the said company, it is only authorised to deal in gold by way of buying and selling. The said company has no valid permission under the Banking Regulation Act or from the Reserve Bank of India for collecting money in the form of deposits from the public. The collection of huge amount in the form of deposits from the public attracts the provisions of Sec. 5 of the Telangana State Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999 (for short, 'TSPDFE Act'), and the petitioner, being the Station House Officer, CCS, DD, Hyderabad, has the authority to investigate into the matter. It is further submitted that the Court of Session was carried away by the contention made on behalf of the respondent/accused that under Sec. of 212(2) of the Companies Act, 2013, where any case has been assigned by the Central Government agencies to the Serious Fraud Investigation Officer for further investigation under the Companies Act, no other investigating agency or Central Government or any State Government shall proceed with investigation in such case in respect of any offence under the said Act, and in case any such investigation has already been initiated, it shall not proceed further with and the concerned agency shall transfer the relevant documents and records in respect of such offence under the said Act to the Serious Fraud Investigating Agency. The learned Public Prosecutor further contends that the aforementioned provision of law has no application to the instant case. The respondent-accused is being proceeded under Sec. 5 of the TSPDFE Act. The Court of Session, relying on the provisions of Ss. 212(2) and 221 of the Companies Act, 2013, granted bail to the respondent-accused, which is erroneous. Huge amount running into crores of rupees has been collected from the public by the said Company in violation of the provisions of the Banking Regulation Act. The respondent-accused is an influential person. She is facing investigation in similar offences in the States of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, Maharashtra and other states across the country ultimately prayed to cancel the bail granted to the respondent-accused.