IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1180 of 2010 DATE:23.06.2010 Between: Duggisetty Raghuram …… Petitioner And: The State of A.P., through S.H.O III Town P.S, Crimes, Nellore, rep. By Public Prosecutor and others. …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1180 of 2010 ORDER: This revision petition is sought to be filed by the accused against order dated 23.02.2010 passed by the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Nellore in Crl.M.P.No.1607 of 2009 in C.C. No.388 of 2008 by which the lower Court dismissed the petition filed by the accused under Section 227 Cr.P.C refusing to discharge. 2) Subject matter of the case in the lower Court is relating to non- payment of amounts due under double benefit scheme which was started by Bhagyasri Finance Company in the year 1991. It is contention of the petitioner’s counsel that the petitioner/accused retired from the partnership of Bhagyasri finance company on 22.03.1998 by way of executing registered relinquishment deed of partnership. There is no dispute about execution of the said registered document. According to the prosecution, the accused executed the said document with a view to avoid payment and other financial burdens of the finance company. Simply because the accused executed unilateral relinquishment deed of partnership seven years after collection of amounts under the scheme, it cannot be a ground for discharging the accused from the case. Admittedly the petitioner was a partner in the finance company when the scheme was floated and the amounts were collected from the public. 3) It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that in the report the defacto- complainants/respondents 2 to 5 made similar allegations not only against the petitioner, but also other partners of the firm. The police during investigation came to the conclusion that other partners of the finance company discharged liability to the extent of their shares in the finance company to the depositors by paying amounts to them. Therefore, the investigating officer deleted those other partners from this case and filed charge sheet against the petitioner only. The petitioner cannot claim any benefit from out of deletion of other partners from this case. If there was any improper deletion of other partners, then the aggrieved parties are the respondents 2 to 5/defacto-complainants and not the petitioner/accused. Having regard to all the circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the lower Court rightly refused to discharge the petitioner. I find no merits in this revision petition. 4) Hence, the revision petition is dismissed. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J June 23, 2010 KSH