"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.