HARI PRASAD SAWA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for quashing the criminal prosecution of the petitioners, including the order, dated 9-5-1986, whereby cognizance of the offence under Sections 13-C and 16(1)(e) of the Bihar Entertainment Tax Act and under Section 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code was taken against the petitioners, which is pending in the court of Smt. S. Tigga, Judicial Magistrate, Jameshedpur, in the following circumstances.

(2.) IT appears that opposite-party No. 2 had filed a complaint in the court, alleging that petitioner Nos. 1 to 5 are partners of 'Payal Cinema' and petitioner No. 6 is the ex-Manager. The said 'Payal Cinema, was granted permission by the Deputy Commissioner to hold cinema shows and screening of the film had started from 16-11-1984, in terms of the notification issued, and exemption from realising entertainment tax for one year from the date of commencement of screening, was allowed to the petitioners. IT was alleged that on 13-1-1985 and 9-2-1985 Inspection was conducted in the 'Payal Cinema' for realising entry fee and entertainment tax and it was found that these partners of the 'Payal Cinema' were realising the entertainment tax although they were not entitled to realise entertainment tax from the customers under the exemption granted for one year and thus after realising the entertainment tax they had misappropriated about 15 lacs and thus had made themselves liable for punishment under Sections 13-C (I) and 16(1)(e) of the Bihar Entertainment Tax Act. IT has been allenged that by suppressing the fact, they had realised entertainment tax from the cinema-goers and that they had deceived them fraudulently and dishonestly and had forced them to pay entertainment tax for which they were not liable to pay. On the basis of the complaint, cognizance was taken against the petitioners who are said to be the Directors of the 'Payal Cinema (P.) (Ltd.)' located in Mango Notified Area, Committee in the district of Singhbhum, which is being challenged in this application.

(3.) THE cardinal point for investigation and determination is as to whether the petitioners had realised entertainment tax in spite of the exemption granted to them for one year or, as claimed by the petitioners, they had not realised any entertainment tax.