Court clarifies deposit issue, spares father from summons, sets rules for recording statement

The court addressed various issues in the case, including the petitioner's grievance over a deposit made without legal authority, issuance of summons to the father of the petitioner's proprietor, and principles to be followed when recording the proprietor's statement. The court sought clarification on the law governing the deposit, decided not to issue further summons to the father due to his senior citizen status, and directed adherence to specific principles in recording the proprietor's statement. The matter was scheduled for the next hearing, with instructions to be provided by the respondents.

---

---

Issues involved:
1. Petitioner aggrieved by deposit of Rs.79 lakhs without authority of law.
2. Provision of law under which the sum was accepted by respondents/revenue.
3. Issuance of summons to father of petitioner's proprietor.
4. Coercive measures against proprietor of petitioner concern.
5. Principles to be followed while recording statement of proprietor.
6. Next date of hearing and instructions to be provided by respondents.

Analysis:

Issue 1: The petitioner is aggrieved by the deposit of Rs.79 lakhs without the authority of law. The respondents argue that the petitioner voluntarily made the deposit. The court seeks clarification on the provision of law under which the sum was accepted by the respondents/revenue. Notice is issued, and a counter-affidavit is to be filed within three weeks, with a rejoinder, if any, before the next date of hearing.

Issue 2: Summons have been issued to the father of the proprietor of the petitioner concern, who is located in Surat, Gujarat. Considering the father's status as a senior citizen, no further summons would be issued at this stage. Regarding the proprietor, if fresh summons are issued, they will join the investigation, but no coercive measures will be taken against him until the next date of hearing.

Issue 3: The court directs that when recording the statement of the proprietor of the petitioner concern, the respondents must follow the principles articulated in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh & Ors. 2021 (1) SCC 184. The matter is listed for the next hearing on 03.08.2022, and Mr. Singla is required to return with instructions, including the aspect indicated above, on the next date of hearing.

---