SUKHBIR SINGH Vs. DEPUTY EXCISE AND TAXATION COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 14-2-1990, Shri Gaje Singh, Excise and Taxation Officer, Haryana, inspected the business premises of Messrs Molu Mal Baru Mal, Commission Agents, Ganaur, in the presence of a son of Mahabir Parshad Jain, karta of the said firm. Shri S.P. Singh, part-time Accountant, Shri Sukhbir Singh, Accountant, Sh. Tej Bhan and one Mr. Anand Kumar, employees of the firm were also present. Messrs Molu Mal Baru Mal has a sister concern known as Messrs Dinesh Rice Mills and Messrs Jatish Rice Mills, at Ganaur. These persons including Sukhbir Singh misbehaved and caused hinderance in the discharge of legal duties of the Excise Staff. Accordingly, Shri Gaje Singh, Excise and Taxation Officer sent his report to the Deputy Excise Commissioner, Sonepat. Sarvshiri S.S. Gulia and S.K. Mittal, Excise and Taxation Officers also reported that while inspecting the business premises of Messrs Dinesh Rice Mills and Messrs Jatish Rice Mills, Shri Ram Kumar, an employee of the firm created hindrance in discharging their legal duties and that some documents and account books were impounded from the business premises of Messrs Molu Mal pertaining to all the three above referred firms and these documents along with the statements were not signed by the said employees. It was also maintained that the list of the books seized was handed over to Shri Sukhbir Singh, Accountant of the firm, who refused to acknowledge its receipt. Under these circumstances, the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Sonepat, got a case registered against Sukhbir Singh and others for offences under Sections 180, 186 and 188, Indian Penal Code (vide F. I. R. No. 82 dated 14-3-1990). It is noteworthy that regarding the same very incident Shri Mahabir Parshad Jain, one of the partners of the firm, had lodged a complaint dated 14-2-1990 earlier in point of time against the Excise Staff alleging that they had removed the cash-books etc. illegally. Sukhbir Singh, S.P. Singh, Tej Bhan and Anand Kumar, petitioners seek the quashing of the F.I.R. under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, contending that there is no provision under Section 36(3) of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973, to give any statement or sign a receipt for the impounded documents. On the other hand, the Sales Tax officials were expected to give receipts to the owners of the business premises qua the seizing or impounding of certain documents or records. It is further maintained that the allegations regarding misbehaviour and hindrance etc. being vague are of no consequence. It is also maintained that no offence under Section 188, Indian Penal Code has been committed by the petitioners as there are no allegations about having promulgated any order by the concerned authorities or violation thereof.

(2.) This petition was resisted by the respondents. In the return filed by Shri Khazan Singh, Sub-Inspector of P.S. Ganaur, it was maintained that the officials of the Excise Department in two groups inspected the business premises of Messrs Molu Mal Baru Mal, Messrs Dinesh Rice Mills and Messrs Jatish Rice Mills, at Ganaur, at 3.00 p.m.on 14-2-1990. The account books of these firms were taken into possession by the Inspecting Officers and a list of the account books was prepared in the presence of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2. These petitioners were asked to sign the statements and acknowledge receipt of the account books, but they refused to do so, and that this act in refusing to sign the receipt or statements would amount to offence under sections 180/186 and 188, Indian Penal Code.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the record. The provisions of section 180 of the Indian Penal Code read as under : -