AMAR KUMAR PRASAD SINHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TWO petitioners, who are husband and wife, have approached this court while invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to quash an order dated 8.3.2001, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vaishali in Sarai P.S. Case No. 30 of 2000. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under Sections 420, 467, 468/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 49(2) & 49(3) of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981.

(2.) SHORT fact of the case is that, a written application of Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Hajipur Circle, Hajipur, addressed to the Officer-in-charge, Sarai Police Station, Vaishali Hajipur against the petitioners and others alleging therein commission of offences under Sections 420, 467, 468/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 49(2)(g) & 49(3)(d) of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 an F.I.R. vide Sarai P.S. Case No. 30 of 2000 was registered on 1.4.2000. According to F.I.R., the petitioner no. 1 was Managing Director and petitioner no. 2 was Director of M/s Natraj Engineering Pvt. Ltd. which was an industrial unit registered with the Sales Tax Department. The said company was manufacturing sleepers for the Railways, and it was registered with the Hajipur Circle of the Sales Tax Department under the Bihar Finance Act. The company had submitted return, and unauthorisedly claimed set off during the financial years 1996-97, 1997-98, 1998-99 & 1999-2000. The total set off amount was Rs. 34,06,316.13 whereas, after 17.9.1997, set off was not permissible under the Rules. It was alleged that the company in question with a view to reduce tax liability had furnished false statement. The company had also filed a writ petition before this court which was subsequently rejected. The company was given notice for depositing the said amount. However, no step was taken on behalf of the company and as such, it was alleged that, company in question had violated the provisions contained in Sections 49(2)(g) & 49(3)(d) of the Bihar Finance Act which is a cognizable offence under Section 49(C) of the Act. On the basis of the said written application, a F.I.R. vide Sarai P.S. Case No. 30 of 2000, for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 49(2)(g) & 49(3)(d) of the Bihar Finance Act against six accused persons including the aforesaid two petitioners. After registering F.I.R., Police investigated the case, and thereafter, charge-sheet was submitted for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 49(2) & 49(3) of the Bihar Finance Act. After filing of the charge-sheet, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate vide its order dated 8.3.2001, took cognizance of offence under Sections 420, 467, 468/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 49(2) & 49(3) of the Bihar Finance Act, and for disposal, transferred the case record to the court of Sri N.K. Lal, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class.

(3.) SRI Hriday Prasad Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has forcibly opposed the prayer of the petitioners. It was submitted by learned Additional Public Prosecutor, that it was a gross case of evasion of Commercial Taxes to the tune of Rs. 34 Lakhs and odd, and petitioner no. 1 was the Managing Director of the Company in question and petitioner no. 2 was its Director and as such, for commission of such a serious offence the learned Magistrate has rightly passed the impugned order of cognizance. On the question of sanction, it was submitted by SRI Hriday Prasad Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor that sanction point can be argued before the court below during the trial, and at this stage, this court may not interfere with the impugned order of cognizance.