A rejoinder is being filed by the de facto complainant in the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Nampaly, Hyderabad which is trying the criminal case against Amway India requesting the honourable magistrate to instruct the CID Police to further investigate into the scam.
Several IBOs of Amway India has appealed to the Andhra Pradesh High Court to declare the business model of Amway India as legal. However, the Honourable High Court has stated in its judgement that the business model of the Amway India attracts the provisions of the Prize Chits Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) act, 1978. However, the CID did not include the names of these IBOs in the charge sheet.
The details of these distributors of A1 are as follows (in W.P.No.20471/2006) 1. K. Rajashekar Reddy S/o K. Laxmikanth Reddy, Aged 24 years, R/o Himayathnagar, Hyderabad. 2. DVSL Deepak S/o D Ramachander Rao, Aged 31 years, R/o 24-87/4 Anand Bagh, Malkajgiri, Hyderabad-47 and 3. G.V. Triveni Prasad S/o G.V. Chalapathi Rao, Aged 53 years, R/o Picket, Secunderabad. Apart from this another distributor by name Sistla Raviteja S/o S. Radhakrishna Murthy, Aged 38 years, R/o Vijayawada vide W.P.no.20616 of 2006 approached the Hon’ble High Court of A.P. in support of A1 styling himself as one of the promoter of scheme of A1. The Hon’ble High Court of A.P. dismissed his writ petition. Still his identity was not shown in the charge sheet. So is the name of Balaji Sukumara in W.P.No.20470 of 2006 on the file of Hon’ble High Court of A.P.
The rejoinder has also mentioned that the charge sheet stated and explained the 6-4-3- scheme. But the CID mentioned the names of only ten persons though it needed 103 persons to complete one leg. It is a wonder only ten persons are indulging in a money circulation scheme.
It was also mentioned that the CID did not take any action against the erring company though it was prohibited in the G.O.M.S. 178 of September 15, 2008 from publishing advertisements both in print and electronic media. Moreover the CID simply stated that they need not action in this connection since others were requested to take action in this regard.
It is hoped that the Magistrate would take necessary action and order the CID to further investigate into the case and come out with a foolproof case.