Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness 304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court Section 128 Contract Act | Surety’s Liability Is Co-Extensive: Kerala High Court Upholds Recovery from Guarantors’ Salary Custodial Interrogation Not Warranted When Offences Are Not Punishable With Death or Life: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Deputy Tahsildar in Land Records Case Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Consumer | No Complete Deficiency In Service — Excess Rainfall Also To Blame: Supreme Court Halves Compensation In Groundnut Seed Crop Failure Case Development Cannot Override The Master Plan: Supreme Court Nullifies Cement Unit CLU In Agricultural Zone Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks Controversial YouTube Remarks On ‘Black Magic Village’ Not A Crime: Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against Abhishek Kar “Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC Section 293 Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Examination of Expert When DNA Report Is Disputed: MP High Court Medical Evidence Trumps False Alibi: Allahabad HC Upholds Conviction In Matrimonial Murder Where Strangulation Was Masked By Post-Mortem Burning Helping Young Advocates Is Not A Favour – It Is A Need For A Better Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Section 82 Cr.P.C. | Mere Non-Appearance Does Not Ipsi Facto Establish Absconding: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order Declaring Student Abroad as Proclaimed Person

Separate Investigations for Each Incident: Each Transaction Constitutes a Separate Crime – Andhra Pradesh High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, led by Dr. Justice K. Manmadha Rao, dismissed writ petitions challenging the transfer of FIRs to various regional offices of the CBCID. The court held that each transaction at different company malls constitutes a separate crime, justifying separate investigations. This decision, dated 9th February 2024, impacts the manner in which cases involving multiple incidents across different jurisdictions are handled.

The petitions raised the issue of whether different transactions at various malls operated by New Look Retails Pvt Ltd. constituted separate crimes, warranting distinct investigations and the potential threat of multiple arrests for the same incident.

New Look Retails Pvt Ltd. and its personnel faced several FIRs across different police stations for alleged violations of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme Act. They contended that transferring these FIRs to different CBCID offices violated their fundamental rights, exposing them to multiple arrests and investigations for the same incident.

Justice Rao observed that each establishment of the petitioner's company in different locations led to separate incidents and thus, separate crimes. The court noted that combining these complaints could lead to confusion, hampering the course of justice. Despite the petitioners' contention that such transfers violated their fundamental rights, the court found no merit in these claims.

The judgement was based on the interpretation of the Indian Companies Act, 1956, the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978, the AP Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishment Act, and various sections of the Cr.P.C. The court emphasized the need for separate investigations to avoid confusion and ensure justice.

The High Court dismissed the writ petitions, finding them devoid of merit. The petitioners were granted the liberty to challenge the final report if any irregularities were found. The interim orders previously granted were vacated.

Date of Decision: 9th February 2024

New Look Retails Pvt Ltd., Mumbai & Others vs. CBCID, Hyd & Others

Latest Legal News