2021 (10) TMI 203 - HC - GST

GST authorities' timely complaint bars default bail entitlement under Cr.P.C.

The court held that the complaint filed by GST authorities within 60 days constituted sufficient compliance with Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., denying the ... Default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. - offences under Section 132 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - authorized officers under the GST law are not police officers and cannot file a final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. - complaint under Section 190(1)(a) Cr.P.C. by a non police prosecuting agency - right to personal liberty under Article 21 (and Article 19) of the ConstitutionDefault bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. - right to personal liberty under Article 21 - Whether the petitioners were entitled to default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. for non filing of a final report/charge sheet within sixty days. - HELD THAT: - The Court held that default bail is an indefeasible right of an accused under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., intended to prevent malafide or belated detention and to protect personal liberty under Article 21. However, where an authorised prosecuting agency files a complaint under Section 190(1)(a) Cr.P.C. within the sixty day period from arrest, the entitlement to default bail is displaced. On the facts, the authorised officer filed a complaint on the 59th day after arrest, which the Court treated as the appropriate prosecutorial step by a non police agency and within the sixty day period. Applying the principles in the cited Supreme Court decisions (including the law on enforceability of default bail and the continued efficacy of the right despite subsequent filings in certain circumstances), the Court concluded that because a complaint was filed within sixty days, the petitioners were not entitled to be released on default bail under Section 167(2). [Paras 17, 18, 19, 26]Default bail was refused because a complaint was filed within sixty days of arrest; the petitioners are not entitled to default bail.Authorized officers under the GST law are not police officers and cannot file a final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. - complaint under Section 190(1)(a) Cr.P.C. by a non police prosecuting agency - Whether officers authorised under the GST law are police officers required to file a final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., or whether they may proceed by filing a complaint under Section 190(1)(a) Cr.P.C. - HELD THAT: - The Court examined the scheme of the CGST Act, 2017 and relevant provisions of the Cr.P.C., and applied authoritative precedent to hold that officers authorised under the GST law are not police officers for the purpose of Section 173 Cr.P.C. Consequently they are not required to, and do not, file a final report under Section 173; rather, with prior sanction where required by the statute, they may institute prosecution by presenting a complaint under Section 190(1)(a) Cr.P.C. The Court relied on statutory construction of Sections 69, 70 and 132 of the CGST Act and on Supreme Court and High Court authorities which recognise that specialised enforcement officers may investigate and then initiate proceedings by complaint rather than by a police report under Section 173. [Paras 20, 21, 22, 23, 25]Authorized GST officers are not police officers for the purposes of Section 173 Cr.P.C.; they may file a complaint under Section 190(1)(a) Cr.P.C., and the complaint filed within sixty days was a valid prosecutorial step.Final Conclusion: The writ petition was dismissed. The courts below did not err in refusing default bail, the complaint by the authorised GST authority was filed within sixty days, and GST authorised officers are not police officers required to file a Section 173 report. Issues Involved:1. Legality of the order rejecting the application for default bail under Section 167 Cr.P.C.2. Whether the complaint filed by the GST authorities within 60 days is sufficient compliance with Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.3. The nature of the GST officers' authority and their role in filing a complaint versus a charge-sheet.Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of the order rejecting the application for default bail under Section 167 Cr.P.C.:The petitioners challenged the order dated 26.06.2021 passed by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, which affirmed the Chief Judicial Magistrate's order rejecting their application for default bail under Section 167 Cr.P.C. The petitioners argued that since the charge-sheet was not filed within 60 days, they were entitled to default bail. The court examined the provisions of Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., emphasizing that default bail is an integral part of personal liberty and an indefeasible right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The court referred to the Supreme Court judgment in M. Ravindran vs Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, which reiterated the right to default bail if the charge-sheet is not filed within the prescribed period.2. Whether the complaint filed by the GST authorities within 60 days is sufficient compliance with Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.:The petitioners argued that the complaint filed by the Senior Intelligence Officer of GST was not maintainable as it did not name any natural person and was not a charge-sheet as required under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. The court noted that the complaint was filed on the 59th day after the petitioners' arrest, which was within the 60-day period prescribed for filing a charge-sheet. The court concluded that the filing of the complaint within 60 days constituted sufficient compliance with Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., thereby disentitling the petitioners from default bail.3. The nature of the GST officers' authority and their role in filing a complaint versus a charge-sheet:The court examined the relevant provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, particularly Sections 69, 70, and 132, which outline the powers of GST officers to arrest and summon individuals. The court highlighted that GST officers are not police officers and are not required to submit a final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. Instead, they are authorized to file a complaint under Section 190(1)(a) Cr.P.C. The court referred to the Supreme Court judgments in Directorate of Enforcement vs Deepak Mahajan and Badaku Joti Savant vs State of Mysore, which clarified that officers under special Acts like the GST Act can file complaints but are not police officers who file charge-sheets.The court also cited the Telangana High Court's decision in P.V. Ramana Reddy vs Union of India, which was upheld by the Supreme Court, confirming that GST officers are not police officers and can file complaints under Section 190(1)(a) Cr.P.C.Conclusion:The court concluded that the complaint filed by the GST authorities within 60 days was valid and constituted sufficient compliance with Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. Consequently, the petitioners were not entitled to default bail. The writ petition challenging the orders of the 5th Additional Sessions Judge and the Chief Judicial Magistrate was dismissed.