IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT:: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.A.No.486 of 2005 Between: Ch.Naga Raju @ Abhinava .... Appellant/de facto complainant AND The State, through SHO P.S Karimnagar I Town rep. By its Public Prosecutor and two others .....Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.A.No.486 OF 2005 JUDGMENT: This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment dated 06-07-2004 in C.C.No.1 of 2003, on the file of the Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, wherein the accused, respondents 2 and 3 herein, were found not guilty for the offence under Section 5 of the A.P. Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishment Act, 1999 (for short ‘the Act’) and were acquitted thereof under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the records. 3. The first respondent/State filed charge sheet against respondents 2 and 3, the accused, in Cr.No.357 of 2002 of I-Town Police Station, Karimnagar, alleging offence under Section 5 of the Act. According to the prosecution, A-1 and A-2 were the managing partners of M/s Sai Sri Financiers and Enterprises situate in Karimnagar and they approached the appellant/complainant (P.W.1) seeking investment by way of fixed deposit and accordingly the appellant/P.W.1 deposited Rs.2,500/- and also another amount of Rs.500/- and A-1 issued fixed deposit certificates in favour of the complainant and another mentioning the maturity value and date of repayment. It is alleged that in spite of repeated demands the accused failed to repay the amounts due to P.W.1. P.W.1 got issued a legal notice dated 17-08-2002 and A-2 issued a reply denying his liability. Thereafter, P.W.1 lodged the complaint-Ex.P-1 which was registered by P.W.3, the investigating officer, as F.I.R-Ex.P-8 in Cr.No.357 of 2002. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. 4. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 denied the offence and pleaded not guilty. 5. In support of their case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-8. No oral evidence was adduced by accused, but Ex.D-1 was marked. 6. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the learned Sessions Judge found the accused not guilty of the offence under Section 5 of the Act and acquitted them. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by the de facto complainant/P.W.1. 7. As rightly observed by the trial Court, in order to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 5 of the Act, the prosecution has to necessarily establish that the accused have started finance business in the name of M/s Sai Sri Financiers and Enterprises and collected deposits from P.W.1 and others and issued the certificates-Exs.P-2 to P-7 with a promise to repay the amounts on maturity but, however, committed default in making the payment. The plea of the accused is one of total denial. They denied even the signatures on the bonds of Exs.P-2 to P-7 and pleaded that they have absolutely nothing to do with M/s Sai Sri Financiers and Enterprises. P.W.3, the investigating officer, has not chosen to gather any evidence to establish that the accused are the managing partners of M/s Sai Sri Financiers and Enterprises and the name of the said firm with which they did finance business and collected deposits from P.W.1 and another. P.W.3 has also not chosen to gather any evidence during the course of investigation by seizing the records or registers of the said firm to show that the accused have collected deposits from P.W.1 and others in the name of M/s Sai Sri Financiers and Enterprises. P.W.3, the investigating officer, has also not taken any steps to send the disputed signatures Exs.P-2 to P-7 to handwriting expert to establish the genuineness of the signatures contained therein, as belonging to the accused. In other words, the investigation done by P.W.3 is totally perfunctory and no effort is made to gather any evidence to incriminate the accused, except the oral testimony of P.Ws.1 and 2 that they paid the amounts to the accused by way of deposits and that the accused failed to repay the amounts as promised by them. There is absolutely no other evidence connecting the accused with the alleged financial transactions of M/s Sai Sri Financiers and Enterprises. In the absence of any such evidence linking the accused with the alleged collection of deposits by M/s Sai Sri Financiers and Enterprises and the alleged failure of the said firm in making repayment of the amounts to the depositors, the ingredients of the offence under Section 5 of the Act are in no way attracted as against the accused. Under those circumstances, the trial Court had rightly held that the prosecution failed to show that the ingredients of the alleged offence under Section 5 of the Act are attracted as against the accused and they failed to establish that A-1 a n d A-2 did the business in the name of M/s Sai Sri Financiers and Enterprises and induced P.Ws.1 and 2 to make deposits with them and that the accused failed to repay the said amounts. The impugned judgment of the trial Court finding the accused not guilty of the offence under Section 5 of the Act and acquitting them of the same, does not call for any interference. 8. In the result, the criminal appeal is dismissed. _____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 13th August, 2009. Lrkm.