Service compliance before coercive process: warrants against summoned accused were set aside for want of summons report.

After cognizance in a prosecution arising from alleged fake input tax credit fraud under the CGST Act, issuance of bailable and non-bailable warrants against summoned accused was held unsustainable because the court proceeded without first receiving the service report of the earlier summons. The High Court distinguished post-cognizance process from pre-cognizance investigation, and noted that coercive process against an accused already summoned requires proper service compliance and recorded justification. On those facts, the warrants were set aside, while the petitioners were directed to appear before the trial court within two weeks, failing which coercive steps could follow.

---

---

Issues: Whether the issuance of bailable and non-bailable warrants against the petitioners after cognizance, without receipt of the service report of the summons earlier issued, was sustainable in law.

Analysis: The petitioners were summoned in the course of proceedings arising out of alleged fake input tax credit fraud under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The record showed repeated summons during investigation, followed by summons issued by the Special Court after cognizance. The Court distinguished the post-cognizance situation from pre-cognizance investigation, and accepted that while a court in a warrant case may issue process, the coercive step of issuing warrants against an accused who had earlier been summoned required proper service compliance and recorded justification. In the facts of the case, the warrants were issued without waiting for the service report of the summons, which rendered the coercive orders unsustainable.

Conclusion: The issuance of warrants was unsustainable and was set aside; the petitioners were directed to appear before the trial court within two weeks, failing which coercive steps could be taken.

---