17 October 2008
Supreme Court
Download

CHADALAVADA SRILATHA Vs A.V.S. MALLIKARJUNA RAO

Bench: S.B. SINHA,CYRIAC JOSEPH, , ,
Case number: Crl.A. No.-001679-001679 / 2008
Diary number: 29524 / 2007
Advocates: RUPESH KUMAR Vs D. BHARATHI REDDY


1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1679   OF 2008

[Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.6713/2007]

CHADALAVADA SRILATHA ... APPELLANT(S)

:VERSUS:

A.V.S. MALLIKARJUNA RAO AND ANR. ... RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

Leave granted.

Mr.  Altaf  Ahmed,  learned  senior  counsel  appearing  on  behalf  of  the

appellants states that an affidavit has been filed in terms of this Court’s order dated

12.5.2008.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that

keeping in view the statements made by Ch. Srilatha in her affidavit affirmed on 26th

November, 2007 as also the statement made before us that she was unable to appear

before the authorities under the Customs Act pursuant  to the  summons issued on

6.12.2005,  5.1.2006  and  2.2.2006  as  she  did  not  have  sufficient  time  therefor  and

furthermore  in  view of the  fact  that she has now appeared

-2-

2

before the Senior Intelligence Officers and Revenue Intelligence, Hyderabad on 22nd,

23rd   and 24th September,  2008,   no useful  purpose  will  be served in allowing  the

prosecution  under Sections  174 and 175 of  the  Indian Penal  Code (being CC No.

1191/2006) to continue.   

However, we place on record the statement made by the learned Additional

Solicitor  General  that  the  statements  made  by  Ch.  Srilatha  that  she  had  neither

worked  with  M/s.  Sravani  Impex  Pvt.  Ltd.  nor  associated  herself  with  any  of  its

business  activities,  are  not  correct.  The  said  issue  may  be  determined  in  an

appropriate proceedings.   

We furthermore make it clear that we have not entered into the merit of the

main matter. The authorities may proceed to decide the merit of the matter in those

proceedings in accordance with law.  

With  the  aforementioned  observation,  the  criminal  complaint  is  quashed.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.    

...........................J (S.B. SINHA)

...........................J   (CYRIAC JOSEPH)    NEW DELHI, OCTOBER 17, 2008.