The said representations were endorsed by the District Collector to the police for investigation.
In the said charge sheet the police Page 4 of 19 stated that Accused No.
He had also obtained Rs.
It has been further stated that 10 days before that he had also diverted huge quantities to NRI Industries, Ponnur.
1 Page 6 of 19 to Accused No.
Accused Nos.
1 to Accused No.
1 and unloaded huge quantities of paddy produced by them and entrusted the same with Accused No.
1 to 9 praying for quashing of the companyplaint filed against them by holding that the allegations made in the said companyplaint do number make out a case for quashing of the companyplaint.
1 diverted part of the paddy to Accused No.
5072 of 2007 was preferred by Accused Nos.
On the other hand, Accused No.
3 are the two sons of Accused No.
Therefore, on 24.06.2005, he filed an insolvency petition bearing I.P. No.
In this special leave petition numberice was issued by this Court vide order dated 18.05.2007 and while doing so interim stay of the further proceedings in C.C. No.
One Chunduru Subba Rao, Accused No.
Vide order dated 19.7.2005 in the petition for grant of anticipatory bail, the Honble High Court of Andhra Pradesh directed release of A 6 to A 8 and A2 to A 4 including the appellants herein.
It is disclosed from the records that Accused No.
It is, therefore, disclosed from the aforesaid facts that all the family members of Accused No.
1 to Accused No.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the criminal petition.
Accused No.
It was further stated in the charge sheet that during the year 2005 Accused No.
He surrendered before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ponnur on 19.7.2005.
In order to appreciate the companytentions raised before us by the companynsel appearing for the parties it would be necessary to set out the brief facts leading to filing of the aforesaid companyplaint dated 02.07.2005.
Page 5 of 19 On 25.11.2006 all the accused i.e. Accused Nos.
5 who was running rice mill under the name and style of S.R. Industries opposite to Sivalayam, Old Ponnur, on the ground of inadequate power supply and secretly sold it for his own use.
2991 of 2007 was filed by Accused Nos.
Consequent upon filing of the aforesaid insolvency petition several representations were made to the District Collector by the villagers making allegations against Accused No.
9 which included both the appellants herein.
So, it was held that there was prima facie material against all the accused i.e. Accused Nos.
Accused No.
9 has also been arrayed as one of the accused in the companyplaint filed and he is the younger brother in law of Accused No.
5072 of 2007.
1 gained unlawfully to the tune of Rs.
2 and Accused No.
110 of 2006 was also passed so far as appellants herein are companycerned.
On 18.9.2006, the Station House Officer, Kakumanu filed a charge sheet bearing C.C. No.
However, his business has declined and companysequently he owed debts to the banks, several financial institutions and to public and that his liabilities aggregated to Rs.
3 is stated to be studying Engineering companyrse in Bapatla, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh.
1 was having a rice mill at Village Lakshmipuram in District Guntur, Andhra Pradesh under the name and style of C.S.R. Rice Mills.
1 and his family members with the Station House Officer, Kakumanu Police Station in Kakumanu Mandal, District Guntur for offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2 and 3 who are sons of Accused No.
1 to Accused No.
2 is stated to be doing his job after companypleting his graduation from Nagarjuna University, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh and his post graduation in Master of Computer Applications under University of Madras.
1 purchased paddy crop from several farmers saying that he would pay the companyt of paddy as per the existing market value.
But Accused No.
2991 of 2007 and SLP C No.
They blindly believed Accused No.
1 and the brother of the son in law of Accused No.1 respectively.
3 jointly filed a Criminal Petition No.
30,000/ to Rs.
Both the aforesaid petitions were listed before us for hearing when we heard the learned companynsel appearing for the parties.
8 are son in law, the daughter of Accused No.
11 of 2005 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Baptala, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh in which Page 3 of 19 he stated that he was sustaining loss for 5 6 years and his aggregated liabilities was approximately Rs.
Similar orders were passed in their special leave petition also.
Eventually, Accused No.
110 of 2006 in the companyrt of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ponnur under Sections 406, 420 and 424 read with Section 37 IPC against Accused No.
He was the sole proprietor of the said rice mill.
6 to Accused No.
3 lakh were executed as security towards the purchase of paddy.
Accused Page 2 of 19 No.
SLP C No.
1 have been arrayed as accused persons in the companyplaint filed.
1,20,00,000/ by cheating the abovementioned paddy suppliers.
9 including the appellants herein Accused No.
1 a housewife and the brother of the son in law of Accused No.
1 had been into rice mill business for about 20 years and had been purchasing paddy from the local paddy growers in the village and that he issued vouchers to some of them while to others promissory numberes ranging from Rs.
5 are the family members of Accused No.
6 to Accused No.
1 whereas Accused Nos.
2 and Accused No.
1 who are aged about 28 and 25 years respectively.
89,51,600/ .
8 who are son in law, the daughter of Accused No.
30 lakhs as loan from State Bank of India, Ponnur and remodeled the rice mill and fortified his goodwill.
Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J. Leave granted.
Both these appeals are being taken up together and are being disposed of by this companymon judgment and order as these appeals have been preferred against the companymon judgment and order dated 01.03.2007 passed by the Page 1 of 19 Andhra Pradesh High Court at Hyderabad.
1 and they are aged about 28 years and 25 years respectively.
89,51,600/. He also got published in the newspaper regarding the factum of filing of the said insolvency petition.
By the aforesaid companymon judgment and order the learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the petition filed by Accused Nos.
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the High Court two special leave petitions were filed in this Court which are registered as SLP C No.
2 to Accused No.
The paddy suppliers, who are respondents herein, also lodged a report dated 2.7.2005 against Accused No.
1 and his family members.
9, who are inter related, developed an evil idea by companyluding themselves and fraudulently directed the loans and gold secretly in benami names in order to defraud the persons who supplied paddy to them.
