In the Court of the Hon’ble
Junior Civil Judge - cum - Judicial Magistrate of First
Class of CHINTALAPUDI
(Matter under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881)
Crl.M.P. No. / 2023 in S.T.C. No. 34 / 2023
In the matter of :
1) M/s Arun Aqua Exports, Partnership Firm, bearing bearing identification number vide
GSTIN-37ABMFA4198E1Z6 & Importer-Exporter Code – ABMFA4198E, represented by its Managing
Partner – Tella Ravi Babu, with Office and Postal Address at Flat No.’F2’, 2 nd Floor, Bala Jyothi
Apartments, Juvvalapalem Road, Bhimavaram-2, Bhimavaram Mandal, West Godavari District, A.P. -
534202 & having its Shrimp Processing Plant at R.S.No.-243/3, D.No.. : 5-372, Seesali Village, Kalla
Mandal, West Godavari District, A.P. – 534237.
2) Tella Ravi Babu, bearing Aadhaar No. 803434288859,
s/o- Tella Bhupathi Rao, aged 55 years, an adult, Indian inhabitant,
HINDU, Male, Kamma by Caste, Prawns Exporter by Profession,
With Postal Address at D.No.2-1-26/2, BalaJyothi Apartments, #S4,
36th Ward, Juvvalapalem Road, Bhimavaram, W.G.Dstrct – 534201.
☎9666665555, ✉ ravibabut@gmail.com
. . . PETITIONERs/ACCUSED
Versus
Methukumelli Gopala Rao, bearing PAN - CVPPM5827H & Aadhaar - 714729438555, s/o -
Raghavulu, aged 47 years, an adult, Indian inhabitant, HINDU, Male, Yadava by Caste, he by profession is
into PisciCulture, r/o - H.No. : 6-38/C, Uttara Bazar, MakkinaVariGudem, T.Narasapuram Mandal, W.G.
District, A.P. – 534456. ☎ 9948593199
. . . RESPONDANT /COMPLAINANT
PETITION u/s - 205 of the CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE for
Dispensation with Personal-Attendance of the 1st & 2nd
Petitioners/Accused
The Accused above named MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH -
Alleged Offence : u/s – 138 & 141 of NI Act, 1881.
The Applicant/Accused hereinbefore beg to state as under –
1. That the 2nd Accused is the Managing Partner of the 1st Accused
and the 2nd Accused is a peace loving business professional of a reputed family and is a
law abiding citizen and is well appreciated amongst family and friends and colleagues.
2. That the 1st Accused’s is a Partnership Firm and is an Entity
concerning shrimp processing unit having it’s head office and factory at the earstwhile
cited addresses and 2nd Accused had been residing in Bhimavaram since atleast 1990 and
originally the 2nd Accused hail from Krishna District.
3. The 2nd Accused’ life’s work is international sea food export and
this has been his line of work since 2017, when he happened to have formed a partnership
firm in the name and style of M/s. SunBitess.
1
4. The 2nd Accused own SunBitess Marines, RVR Marine Products
Ltd., and also, he along with his wife, holds 50% shares in Arun Aqua Marine Exports
i.e., the 1st Accused, and both are the Managing Partners of the 1st Accused.
5. The 2nd Accused is the epitome of honesty and his reputation
precedes him.
6. Assuredly, it is pertinent to note, that perishability is the quality of
a food that makes it expire or spoil quickly. It is necessary for perishable foods to be fresh
in order to be safe for human consumption. The Accused being the businessman who has
to deal with aqua food processing, shall refrigerate or freeze those perishable food items to
slow or prevent bacteria growth and shield the freshness of the food for a longer period.
Perishable products have a short shelf-life, meaning that business owners can only save,
store and sell them for a limited period. The Accused are into the business which involves
storing and selling and preserving freshness of certain perishable products for a brief
period of time. Hence timely and efficient decision-making is an essential component that
has to be followed inevitably by the Accused to survive without incurring losses.
7. The genesis of this matter had its roots with the M/s. Jaya Satya
Marine Exports Pvt. Ltd., situated at Survey No. 243/3, D.No. 5-372, Seesali Village,
Kalla Mandal, Bhimavaram – 534204, which was into processing of sea foods, had come
up for sale, due to the sudden death of its Director, Shri. Toram Trinath Babu. To acquire
the same, Shri. Rebba Satyanarayana i.e., the brother of Imumula Kumari, finalized the
deal for an amount of ₹. 20 Crores. Out of the ₹. 20 Crores, he had arranged ₹. 12 crores
as loan from UCO Bank, and the balance amount of ₹. 8 Crores was paid in cash out of
the amounts received from STL & KCC Loans from IDBI Bank and resultantly earned
the same into M/s RDR Exports’s possession. Down the line M/s RDR Exports i.e., the
bankrupted Firm preceding the 1st Accused Firm, had availed various loans to the tune of
₹. 42.40 Crores from UCO Bank and the loan accounts of the same became Non-
Performing Asset (NPA) on 31/03/2015. As on the date of NPA, M/s. RDR Exports has
to pay ₹. 36.62 Crores to UCO Bank. And thenceforth, Tella Ravi Babu i.e., the 2 nd
Accused, Tella Sobha i.e., the wife if the 2 nd Accusedt, Metukumalli Gopala Rao i.e., the
Complainant, , Achanta Satish floated a Partnership Firm by name M/s Arun Aqua
Exports vide Partnership Deed dated 01/04/2017 but afterwards the stated supra four
Partners had let in Inumula Kumari i.e., the very own sister of Rebba Satyanarayana as
5th Partner vide instrument of Partnership dated 01/01/2019 and given that the borrower
i.e., the M/s RDR Exports who failed to service their loan and was incapable of
generating adequate resources in the foreseeable future and having no other recourse but
to make a request for a One-Time Settlement (OTS) to pay their dues and then in the
ensuing days the OTS Funding Scheme proposal had been agreed by UCO Bank on
01/01/2019 for an amount of ₹. 15.60 Crores and accordingly M/s Arun Aqua Exports
i.e., the 1st Accused had entered into an agreement vide Asset Purchase Agreement dated
11/01/2019 towards purchase of M/s RDR Exports for a consideration of ₹. 12 Crores for
which the 1st Accused obtained an SME loan from SBI Bank, Bhimavaram Branch, which
was used to settle OTS of M/s RDR Exports and thus the 1 st Accused made acquisition of
ownership by prescription over M/s RDR Exports.
8. That to cut a long story short, Achanta Satish & the Complainant
& Inumula Kumari have entered into a Partnership Agreement dated 01/01/2019 with
the 2nd Accused and his wife, by the stipulations of the earlier stated Partnership Deed at
hand, as they all were said to have covenanted in loyalty to the 2 nd Accused & his wife
and vice versa.
9. Whereas the Complainant’s such unauthorized baseless actions is
injurious to the partnership firm Arun Aqua Marine Exports i.e., the 1 st Accused,
resulting in dislocation of the work, or, thereby creating bottleneck in the smooth
running of the firm.
10. That the accused has been summoned by this Hon’ble Court to
answer a Charge under Section-138 of NI Act as the Complainant herein has filed this
2
Complaint under Sections-200 Cr.P.C. against the Accused herein before this Hon’ble
Court for punishing the Accused under Section-138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, for
having committed dishonour of cheques. The said Complaint were taken on file by the this
Hon’ble Court as STC-34/2023.
11. That the Accused has not committed any offence and he pleads not
guilty to the charge leveled against him.
12. That the Accused will offer sufficient surety for his appearance
before this Hon’ble Court and for his abiding by any conditions that may be required to
be fulfilled in this Case.
13. That the Accused is a permanent resident of Bhimavaram and he
has to travel 120 Kms to reach this Court and has to be travel back 120 Kms to reach his
abode and he is not in a position to come really a long way on all dates of hearing to
attend the Court at Chintalapudi.
14. The 2nd Accused used to have a pretty hectic schedules at work
which triggered mental and physical illness in the 2 nd Accused and engendered early
Cervical Spondylosis and been living ever since with severe chronic pain and gradually,
almost imperceptibly has worsened considerably as the days passed by, whichever have
culminated in spinal stenosis i.e., nothing else but narrowing of spinal canal, which as a
result, spinal nerve roots became pinched, having caused cervical spondylotic myelopathy
and if something were to happen it could result in the recurrent symptoms including
memory loss and poor attention and etc., the 2nd Accused's health totally deteriorated
over those years and this trauma may severely damage the spinal cord and all four limbs
may suddenly become paralyzed succeeding the abnormal sensations as well as is known
to increase the risk of brain stroke if the 2nd Accused carry on any further in the same
way he did till day wit his life, the Doctor said and also the Doctor advoced that the 2 nd
Accused requires consistent physiotherapy mandatorily for physical rehabilitation and
the 2nd Accused has been complying with the Doctor's advice and the 2 nd Accused was
prescribed by the Doctors some powerfull medicines to treat and control and numb his
pain in spine and neck which demands continuous rest for the 2 nd Accused for the sake of
the overall health.
15. And as a consequence, the 2 nd Accused ought to be on the
medication, which makes him weak and is particularly in a vulnerable position to the
crowdy places and prolonged sitting and standing for even few minutes and the very
thing that should be mindful of is that the 2nd Accused on no account can’t travel by any
means and puts him in a position in which he is no way can appear in person before the
learned Court. So, the doctor had strongly recommended the 2 nd Accused to a quiet year
in bed.
16. The medical report and prescription slips are being annexed shall
and forthwith. The point worth bearing in mind is that the 2nd Accused is currently
confined mostly to his domicile for the sake of convenience in attending a Physiotherapist
for his regular imperative treatment and is of the age 56.
17. It is not doubt but true that in the matter of exempting the
Accused from personal appearance in appropriate cases, Criminal Procedure Code has
given ample discretion to the Courts. Section-205(1) of CrPC enables the Hon’ble
Magistrate to dispense with the personal attendance of the Accused and permit him to
appear by his Pleader if he is satisfied with the reason mentioned by the Accused.
Ordinarily in a criminal case, evidence has to be rerecorded in the presence of the
Accused, however, Section-273 of Cr.P.C. envisages that in appropriate cases, the
personal appearance of the Accused could be dispensed with and evidence could be
recorded in the presence of the pleader. Likewise, Section-317 of Cr.P.C. also empowers
the Hon’ble Judge or Magistrate if satisfied, for reasons to be recorded, that the personal
attendance of the Accused before Court is not necessary in the interest of justice, the
3
Judge or Magistrate can dispense with the personal attendance of the Accused and
proceed with the enquiry or trial in his absence.
18. The Accused authorizes his Advocates P.Jaswanth and Padma
Bhupathiraju, to appear for him and to conduct the Defense at his behest. Further the
Accused undertakes to be present before the Court as and when directed by this Hon’ble
court to do so.
19. Exclusively to prevent the 1st & 2nd Accused from undue hardship
and costs in attending the Court, through which the Accused can be permanently
exempted from personal appearance in a Summons Case and being well versed in the fact
that the exemption sought herein is not absolute in nature and is subject to certain
conditions, which may be imposed by the Hon’ble Magistrate to ensure that the
prosecution proceedings are not prejudiced.
20. Needless to say, conventionally, the purpose of attendance of the
Accused is not merely a formality or compulsion, rather it is followed so that the
procedure can be conducted in an expedient manner and is not hampered or prejudiced in
the absence of the Accused. But in cases where coming to court every time causes great
hardship and inconvenience to the Accused, given pursuant to day-to-day running of the
Accused’s business and his health would fell into ruination, so, he shall be granted
exemption on relevant Undertaking and Conditions.
21. The Accused’s permanent exemption that pertains to the current
Complaint from appearance during the whole proceedings having been on the lookout for
because the Accused got stuck in his prior business and medical treatment commitments
and the longer distance of coming to court i.e., all the way from Bhimavaram to
Chintalapudi, added upon his hardships. This is not the right way to deliver justice by
making the Accused suffer which can even cost him more than the actual compensation
desired and point worth noting is that this proposition is being and will have been
applicable to most of the Summons Cases as Section-138 of Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881 is considered as less serious offences.
22. As it is known that Section-205 r/w Section-313(4) of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973, provides exemption in Summons-Cases, where the Court has
dispensed with the personal attendance of the Accused, it may also dispense with his/her
Examination under the said Clause.
23. Hon’ble Magistrate may be pleased to fully analyze the facts and
the circumstances of the Case and grant exemption as the Accused has not been
absconding and has not been Proclaimed Offender by any Court.
24. The nature of the crime alleged as well as the conduct of the
Accused are of paramount importance, the Movant herein begs this Hon’ble Court to
consider this Application for the said exemption.
25. That wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble
Court in the interest of justice may abide by the below Judgment –
Potluri Vara Prasad Vs. Usha Pictures And Financiers { Criminal Petition No.1807 of 2023 }
That in this Case of Andhra Pradesh High Court, Amaravathi whose Order was
pronounced on 09th of March, 2023. The Court in its Order found that since the
Petitioner is being represented by a duly authorized pleader, without insisting for the
presence of the Petitioner, his duly authorized pleader can be examined under Section 251
of Cr.P.C. and personal appearance of the Petitioner even at the stage of Section-251 of
Cr.P.C. examination is not required and in support of the said contention the Hon’ble AP
HC relied on a decision of the High Court of A.P. reported in K. Rama Chandra Murthy
Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (Crl.RC.No.2323 of 2012, dated 12.12.2012)1, subject to
4
condition of the Petitioner giving an Undertaking that he would not take the plea of
prejudice of his being not personally examined under Section 251 of Cr.P.C, 1973.
In "Bhaskar Industries Ltd. Vs. Bhiwani Denim & Apparels Ltd. & others"
reported in (2001) 7 SCC 401, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that when an
Accused makes an Application to a magistrate through his duly authorised counsel
praying for affording the benefit of his personal presence being dispensed with, the
Magistrate can consider all aspects and pass appropriate Orders in the Movant’s favour.
26. Thus in a catena of Judgments, several Courts have ruled that the
exemption from personal appearance by magistrate can last upto conclusion of Trial
unless Court/Magistrate feels it necessary to call his/her appearance in interest of justice.
Certain Provisions in CrPC expressly or by necessary implications mandate the
exemption from appearance at particular stages. For example, as mentioned further up,
under Section-273 of CrPC, 1973, the evidences may be recorded in absence of
Accused( but in presence of his pleader) when the exemption from appearance is granted
to him. Beside this, Section-205 of Cr.P.C. allows the Accused to appear by a Pleader and
such appearance involves the performance of all acts which devolve upon the Accused in
the course of the Trial, such as answering the Examination by the Court or pleading or
refusing to plead to the Charge.
27. The Plea of the Applicants for his permanent exemptionis neither
willfull nor wanton but due to the divulged supra bona-fide reasons.
28. That the Petitioners/Accused shall not be having any objection if
the Complainant’s Evidence is recorded in his absence.
29. That the Applicants shall not dispute his identity in any way
during the Trail and shall also abide by all the terms and conditions imposed by this
Hon’ble Court while granting the concession of exemption from personal appearance.
PRAYER
In view of the aforesaid submission vehemently made here in relying upon
the erstwhile cited legal precedents and in the interest of the justice, as the Hon’ble
Court’s time is paramount, it is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble
Court may graciously be pleased to :
Dispense with the personal attendance of the Accused and permit him to appear
by pleader in the interest of justice and equity and pass such other or further orders as
this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the Case as
soon as possible at the Hon’ble Court’s convenience as provided for under the provision of
Section-205 of CrPC, 1973 on the ground that there is a plausible explanation and
coherent reason.
It is prayed accordingly,
AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE HUMBLE APPLICANT AS IN DUTY BOUND, SHALL EVER PRAY.
Be pleased to consider,
Station : Chintalapudi,
Date : 25/ 07 / 2023.
Accused – 1 :
Accused – 2 :
Advocate for the 1st & 2nd Accused :
5
List of Documents filed by the 1st & 2nd Accused
Parties to the Nature of the Document REMARKS
Sr.No.
DATE Document {Annexure}
1. 22/07/2023 Dr. A. ShivaShankar & the Medical Certificate Original
2nd Accused
Be pleased to consider,
Station : Chintalapudi,
Date : 25/ 07 / 2023.
Accused – 1 :
Accused – 2 :
Advocate for the 1st & 2nd Accused :
