By S A Ishaqui
Hyderabad, March 7:
The First Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ms Y.H. Prameela Reddy, on Friday rejected a complaint filed by the Crime Investigation Department against media baron Ch Ramoji Rao and Margadarsi Financiers which he owns.
The inspector-general (CID), Mr T. Krishna Raju, who is the authorised officer of Margadarsi Financiers case, filed the complaint against Mr Ramoji Rao and his firm for alleged violation of Section 45-s (1), (i) and 45-s (2) of the Reserve Bank of India Act 1953.
However, the additional chief metropolitan magistrate passed orders rejecting the complaints stating that a special leave petition was pending in Supreme Court with regard to the same matter. It was also observed that the complainant had failed to submit thestatements of 865 depositors recorded by the complainant during the course of inquiry of the case.It may be mentioned that the CID has searched the premises of Margadarsi Financiers on February 21, 2007 and seized relevant documents, deposit certificates and a hard disc. Krishna Raju submitted to the court that Margadarsi Financiers established as Hindu Undivided Family firm and the firm has no right to accept deposits from other persons who are not relatives.He told the court that the accused had violated Section 45(s) of the RBI Act and investigation revealed that the depositors of the Margadarsi Financiers were general public and they were not related to the accused.
Hyderabad, March 7:
The First Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ms Y.H. Prameela Reddy, on Friday rejected a complaint filed by the Crime Investigation Department against media baron Ch Ramoji Rao and Margadarsi Financiers which he owns.
The inspector-general (CID), Mr T. Krishna Raju, who is the authorised officer of Margadarsi Financiers case, filed the complaint against Mr Ramoji Rao and his firm for alleged violation of Section 45-s (1), (i) and 45-s (2) of the Reserve Bank of India Act 1953.
However, the additional chief metropolitan magistrate passed orders rejecting the complaints stating that a special leave petition was pending in Supreme Court with regard to the same matter. It was also observed that the complainant had failed to submit thestatements of 865 depositors recorded by the complainant during the course of inquiry of the case.It may be mentioned that the CID has searched the premises of Margadarsi Financiers on February 21, 2007 and seized relevant documents, deposit certificates and a hard disc. Krishna Raju submitted to the court that Margadarsi Financiers established as Hindu Undivided Family firm and the firm has no right to accept deposits from other persons who are not relatives.He told the court that the accused had violated Section 45(s) of the RBI Act and investigation revealed that the depositors of the Margadarsi Financiers were general public and they were not related to the accused.
No comments:
Post a Comment