"You mean the AP High Court judgement where they explictly state they don't have the benefits of full evidence and hearings so are unable to make a proper judgement?" IBOFB blatantly lies in his comments.
It is the blatant lie and nowhere the Andhra Pradesh High Court stated that do not have the full benefit of full evidence.
In the para No. 41, the judgement said, "The complaint submitted to the CID police, Hyderabad in this case is exhaustive.The complainant graphically described how the scheme run by the petitioner (Amway India) through the other petitioners and various distributors in the country constitutes money circulation scheme. The gist of the complaint has already been extracted herein before. From the conclusion arrived at by us on the analysis of the admitted material available before us concerning the scheme, we have no doubt whatsoever that if the allegations contained in the report of C No. 1474/C-27/CID/2006 dated 24-9-2006 are taken on their face value they make out an offence punishable under the provisions of the Sections 4,5, and 6 of the Act (PCMC Act).
The High Court further said in Para No 49 that, "Mr Adinarayana Rao (counsel for Amway India) contended that even assuming that the police are satisfied that the petitioners are indulging in money circulation scheme, they cannot high-handedly interfere with the business of the petitioners till the criminal court after a full-fledged trail holds the petitioners guilty of the offence alleged against them. We have carefully, considered this submission of the learned counsel. It is well settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that no person shall be presumed to be guilty until his guilt is proved but we are unable to accept the broad submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners (Amway India) that till the conclusion of the criminal case the police have no power to interfere with the business activities of the petitioners. Section 7 of the Act empowers the police officer not below the rank of an officer in charge of a police station to enter, search and seize if he has reason to suspect some prize chits or money circulation scheme is promoted in contravention of the provisions of the Act.
In the Para 53, the High Court stated that, " As regards Writ Petitions Nos. 24799 of 2000, 22914,22915,22916, 22913, 21128, 20616, 23737, 26149 of 2006, 3202, 2462, 9397, 9398of 2007 which were listed for hearing along with these petitions, it is appropriate to observe that the court did not have the benefit of of the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. It is therefore, appropriate that ll these petitions be listed for hearing on 24-08-2007.
These are the statements in the High Court judgement and IBOFB blatantly lies about the judgement. To cap it all, he calls every one who tells truth a liar.
9 comments:
The court cited
State of Karnataka vs M. Devendrappa, saying -
The High Court being the highest court of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding at any stage. Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. It would not be proper for the High Court to analyse the case of the complainant in the light of all probabilities in order to determine whether a conviction would be sustainable and on such premises arrive at a conclusion that the proceedings are to be quashed. It would be erroneous to assess the material before it and conclude that the complaint cannot be proceeded with.
Amway had asked the court to effectively decide the case the police where bringing. They said, as per above, they should not. I'd note to the very section you quote descredits you're claims. It says -
if the allegations contained in the report of C No. 1474/C-27/CID/2006 dated 24-9-2006 are taken on their face value they make out an offence .
Did you get that, Shyam? IF the police allegations are correct it's an offence.
Yet you keep trying to claim the court already found Amway guilty.
What have you quoted IBOFB? Putting your own words in the judgement. Who is a liar?
The key word is 'admitted material'. Who admitted? The Amway India that has admitted in its affidavit.
Oh Shyam, Shyam! How desperate are you now?
I am citing Amway India Enterprises, (A Private Company With Unlimited Liability), Through Mr. Yoginder Singh,
Authorised Signatory And Anr. vs Union Of India (Uoi), Rep. By Secretary, Ministry Of Home And Ors. on 19/7/2007, a copy of which you yourself sent me.
Are you actually admitting you've never even read the case properly???!!!???!!
The court clearly cites Karnataka vs M.Devedrappa, and clearly states IF the allegations are correct it would be an offence.
You didn't know this? Well now you do. Can we go home now?
I highlighted the exact point in the post. Just look at it and talk. I have read the case properly. You are misinterpreting and misreading and misleading the readers.
What you highlighted supports 100% what I am claiming
* if the allegations of the police are correct, Amway is in violation of the Act
* The High Court should refrain from making a prima facie decision
Your own quote says "on their face value", and the court itself says a decision shouldn't be made based on that!
Yet you do. And you claim they did.
It's simply not true.
What's the latest on the actual case, Shyam? In the District Court in Hyderberad I believe?
Again you conveniently skipped the key words, Master bluff! OK I will once again post the key parts of the judgement.
"If the allegations contained in the report of C No. 1474/C-27/CID/2006 dated 24-9-2006 are taken on their face value they make out an offence" means prima facie they make out an offence punishable under the provisions of the PCMC Act. Mr IBOFB should get it right.
The words "If" and "face value" prove you, Brear, and Shyam are utterly STUPID!!! LOL
Post a Comment