2016 (7) TMI 1194 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Appellate court upholds trial court acquittal emphasizing presumption of innocence & high standard of proof

The appellate court dismissed the appeal against the trial court's acquittal of the respondents in Case FIR No.240/2002. The court upheld the presumption ... Issuance of duplicate and forged ST-35 forms and C-Form - irregularity - offence punishable under Section 420/34 IPC - respondent No.2 claimed that he had already furnished Forms ST-35 to the Accountant of the appellant who had put his signature and affixed seals on the reverse side of the counter-foils. The appellant was called by the Sales-Tax Officer (STO) and shown the counter-foils of the Forms ST-35 bearing the seals of his sole proprietorship concern as well private limited company. The seals and signatures both were disputed by him pointing out that while the registered office of the company was at East-Patel Nagar, the seal on the counter-foils were of the address at Manak Vihar, Delhi. Held that:- Admittedly the complainant had given the written requests in deliberation with the concerned Sales Tax Officer on 7th December, 2001 and procedure for issuance of duplicate Forms ST-35 was undertaken by T.R.Biyani – respondent no.2. - Similarly in respect of second incident pertaining to one out of ten C Forms supplied, the mistake was pleaded to be inadvertent and the said mistake was only an irregularity and not an illegality so as to make it culpable. This fact was confirmed even by the Sales Tax Department, Goa and the mistake was also rectified. The learned Trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that while supplying ten C-Forms one out of that for the year 1996-1997, 1997-1998 was for two financial years but this being an irregularity was not sufficient to hold the accused No.2 and 3 guilty for the offence punishable under Section 420/34 IPC. On re-evaluation of the evidence and the finding recorded by the learned Trial Court, the grounds on which the learned Trial Court has based its conclusion, the order of acquittal does not warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of appellant jurisdiction. Issues Involved:1. Exemption from procedural requirements.2. Preponement of hearing applications.3. Application for arrest of respondents due to non-compliance with bail bond conditions.4. Applications for procuring presence of respondents for recovery of forged seals.5. Appeal against the judgment of acquittal in case FIR No.240/2002.Issue-wise Analysis:1. Exemption from Procedural Requirements:The court allowed the exemption application, subject to all just exceptions, and disposed of the matter.2. Preponement of Hearing Applications:The appellant did not press the applications for preponement of hearing as the matter had already been heard. Consequently, both applications were dismissed as infructuous.3. Application for Arrest of Respondents Due to Non-Compliance with Bail Bond Conditions:The appellant filed an application requesting the court to order the arrest of respondents No.2 to 4 for allegedly failing to furnish bail bonds as directed. The court noted that the respondents had complied with the modified bail order by furnishing the required bonds, which were accepted by the Registrar General. Therefore, the application was dismissed.4. Applications for Procuring Presence of Respondents for Recovery of Forged Seals:The appellant sought the presence of respondents No.2 to 4 to recover forged seals, citing their alleged admission during anticipatory bail proceedings. The court observed that the alleged admissions made during anticipatory bail proceedings by the respondents' counsel did not amount to a confession and that any recovery should have been done during the investigation stage, which was fourteen years ago. The applications were dismissed.5. Appeal Against the Judgment of Acquittal in Case FIR No.240/2002:The appellant challenged the acquittal of the respondents in the trial court, arguing that the prosecution had proved the forgery and cheating charges beyond a reasonable doubt. The trial court had acquitted the respondents, noting that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. The court highlighted several key points:- The seals on the counterfoils were not conclusively proven to be forged.- The forensic expert could not conclusively determine the signatures on the questioned documents.- The alleged forged seals were not recovered.- The issuance of duplicate Forms ST-35 was done to resolve the issue without causing loss to the government or the parties involved.- The supply of invalid C-forms was an inadvertent mistake, later rectified, and did not amount to cheating.The appellate court emphasized the presumption of innocence and the high threshold for overturning an acquittal. It concluded that the trial court's findings were reasonable and did not warrant interference. The appeal was dismissed, and the trial court's record was ordered to be sent back.Conclusion:The judgment addressed multiple procedural and substantive issues, ultimately upholding the trial court's acquittal of the respondents. The appellate court found no grounds to interfere with the trial court's conclusions, emphasizing the principles of presumption of innocence and the necessity of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.