TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court rules in favor of accused petitioners, sets safeguards against coercive actions</h1> <h3>Nannapaneni Krishnamurth, Madala Vishnu Vardhana Rao Versus State of Andhra Pradesh, CID Police Station, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Assistant Commissioner (ST)</h3> The court ruled in favor of the accused petitioners, acknowledging their challenge regarding the applicability of Sections 132 and 120(E) IPC and APGST ... Intermediaries helped in rotating the money between the buyers and sellers of various goods and services - Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 120(E) IPC and Sections 132 (1) (i) read with Section 132(1) and (f) of the APGST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- The investigation in this complaint may go on. However, no coercive steps will be taken against the petitioners including arrest as and when they appear before the Investigating Officer on 22.04.2021 by petitioner NO.2 and 24.04.2021 by petitioner No.l or such further dates without obtaining further orders from this Court. Post on 05.05.2021, in the motion list.' 2440/2021 Issues:Accused petitioners challenging applicability of Sections 132 and 120(E) IPC and APGST Act, 2017. Concerns regarding coercive action without basis.Analysis:1. Applicability of Sections 132 and 120(E) IPC and APGST Act, 2017:The petitioners, accused Nos. 12 and 13, contested the applicability of Sections 132 and 120(E) IPC and APGST Act, 2017 to their case. The counsel for petitioners argued that the complaint only alleged their role as intermediaries in money transactions between buyers and sellers. It was emphasized that no specific allegations related to the mentioned sections were made against the petitioners. The learned counsel asserted that even if the complaint's allegations were true, the provisions of the APGST Act, 2017, particularly Section 132, should not be applicable to the petitioners. The defense maintained that the petitioners had no intention of evading the investigation and were willing to prove their innocence during the proceedings.2. Concerns Regarding Coercive Action:The defense expressed concerns about potential coercive actions, such as arrest, being taken against the petitioners without proper justification. The counsel apprehended that despite the petitioners' cooperation with the investigation, coercive measures might be initiated. In response, the Additional Advocate General representing the respondents assured that no coercive steps would be taken against the petitioners unless they failed to cooperate with the investigation. It was highlighted that a notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C had been issued, indicating the state's intention not to resort to coercive actions unnecessarily. The court, considering the submissions from both sides, ordered that no coercive steps, including arrest, would be taken against the petitioners when they appeared before the Investigating Officer on the specified dates. The court directed that further orders would be required for any coercive actions beyond the mentioned dates.In conclusion, the judgment addressed the petitioners' challenge regarding the applicability of specific legal provisions to their case and established safeguards against unwarranted coercive actions during the investigation. The court's decision aimed to balance the interests of justice with the rights of the accused individuals, ensuring a fair and transparent legal process.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
