JUGAL KISHORE POPLI Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this rule, the four petitioners, who are partners of M/s. Jugal Kishore Popli and Company, carrying on its business at 118, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Calcutta, and which firm is a registered dealer under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, pray for quashing of a proceeding pending against them in the court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 14th Court, Calcutta.

(2.) On 15th October, 1976, the police submitted a challan against the petitioners on their failure to deposit the security deposit of Rs. 15,000 within 7 days from the date of the service of the memo issued by the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, West Bengal, under Section 7(4a)(ii) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, and thereby committing an offence under Section 22(1)(b) of the aforesaid Act. On the basis of such challan, the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, before whom it was filed, took cognisance against the petitioners and, subsequently, the case was transferred to the 14th Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta. The petitioners filed an application before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 14th Court, Calcutta, praying for their discharge on the ground that the cognisance was bad and illegal inasmuch as it was barred by limitation. The learned Magistrate rejected such application. Thereafter, the petitioners moved this Court and obtained the present rule.

(3.) Mr. Dilip Kumar Dutta, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners, took twofold objections to the continuation of the proceedings. His first objection was that, since the registered firm, viz., Jugal Kishore Popli and Company, has not been made an accused, the partners of that firm could not be sued on the allegation that they failed to comply with the demand made by the Additional Chief Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, West Bengal, under Section 7(4a)(ii) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, to deposit the security deposit of Rs. 15,000 within 7 days from the date of service of his memo dated 27th January, 1965. Mr. Dutta contended that the aforesaid firm was the registered dealer and has had legal entity of its own and without impleading the said firm the partners of it could not be prosecuted for violation of the aforesaid order of the Additional Chief Commissioner of Commercial Taxes for deposit of the security deposit of Rs. 15,000, which was served on the firm. The second contention of Mr. Dutta was that, in any event, the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate acted illegally and without jurisdiction in taking cognisance of the offence under Section 22(1)(b) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act long after the alleged commission of the offence particularly when the challan itself shows that the offence was committed during the period between 3rd February, 1965, and 25th August, 1972.