TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (7) TMI 1194
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing them to uphold majesty of law, in the interest of justice." 2. In the instant application, the petitioner after giving the facts of the two criminal cases, has also made reference to the civil suit wherein a decree has been passed in his favour but not executed. 3. The ground on which direction to take respondents No.2 to 4 in custody has been sought is on their alleged wilful disobedience to furnish the bail bond as directed by this Court on 18.02.2013 while granting leave to appeal. 4. Perusal of the proceedings reveal that on 18.02.2013 in Crl.L.P. No.329/2010, following order was passed:- "This leave to appeal petition was dismissed by this Court on 16th September, 2010 against which order the Petitioner filed a Special Leave to Appeal petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 27th July, 2012 observed as under:- 'Leave granted. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. We are of the considered opinion that the High Court ought to have decided the matter on merit as the right of appeal became available to the complainant only after the new amendment of the Code of Criminal Procedure which came into....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the directions dated 27.07.2012 of Hon'ble Supreme Court. The prayer clause of the application reads as under :- "All three accused in the present case may very kindly be summoned and directed to appear before this Hon'ble Court at the time of passing of order while disposing of pending CM Nos.10610-11 on 19.08.2014." 4. The order dated 27.07.2012 passed by the Supreme Court in Crl.A. No.1155/2012 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.475/2011 has been extracted in para No.4 while disposing of Crl.M.A. No.10160/2013. The direction by Supreme Court is limited to the extent of hearing the appeal on merits. 5. Perusal of the appeal file shows that on 15.01.2014 the appeal was directed to be listed for hearing in due course at its turn. Thereafter on 30.05.2014 Crl.M.A.Nos.9287/2014, 10610/2013 & 10611/2013 were listed for 19.08.2014 for disposal when bailable warrants in the sum of Rs.5000/- were issued against respondents No.2 to 4 returnable for 18.11.2014. Respondents No.2 to 4 appeared the Court on 18.11.2014 alongwith their counsel. Appellant though present on that date did not make any request for any direction to them about the purpose for which their personal appearanc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d have been done only at the stage of investigation carried out fourteen years ago. 9. Both the applications are hereby dismissed. Crl.A. No.240/2013 1. The appellant Ravinder P.Kumar has impugned the judgment dated 4th August, 2009 in case FIR No.240/2002 PS Patel Nagar by virtue of the newly amended provision i.e. proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. 2. The appellant herein was complainant in case FIR No. 240/2002, registered at PS Patel Nagar. Initially he filed a criminal complaint wherein, in exercise of the power under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., learned MM directed the concerned police station to register FIR and investigate the matter. 3. After registration of FIR No. 240/2002 for commission of the offence punishable under Section 467/468/471/420/34 IPC, the charge-sheet was filed and trial commneced. Since all the accused persons who are respondents in this appeal pleaded not guilty to the charge, the prosecution examined 9 witnesses. The incriminating evidence was put to the respondent/accused during their examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. DW-1 Ashok Kumar Gupta was also examined by the accused persons in their defence. 4. After trial all the accused persons have....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Due to non-recovery of admitted case property i.e. forged seals, injustice has been done to the appellant. (vii) The order of acquittal is erroneous and contrary to the provisions of the law. 9. Mr.Manjeet Singh, learned Senior Advocate of the respondents No.2 to 4 has contended that :- (i) There is no evidence of forgery being committed by them qua Ex. PW-1/1 to Ex. PW-1/8. (ii) The complainant has suppressed the fact of his wife being Director in M/s Adige Computers Pvt. Ltd. which he admitted during his crossexamination but without giving any explanation as to why she was not implicated as an accused in respect of Ex. PW-1/1 to Ex. PW-1/8 i.e. the counter foils. (iii) Forms ST-35 may be valuable securities but not counter foils as it neither creates any right nor liability. (iv) No complaint regarding forgery of Forms ST-35 or false claim of sales tax credit either by the accused persons or by the company i.e. M/s Adige Computers Pvt. Ltd. was made to Sales Tax Department which was competent to deal with such complaints. (v) No further claim before or after issuance of duplicate Forms ST-35 on December 10, 2001 has been made by anybody in respect of Forms S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t East-Patel Nagar, the seal on the counter-foils were of the address at Manak Vihar, Delhi. 14. The respondent No.2 agreed to furnish duplicate ST-35 Form and for that purpose the appellant was asked to make a formal request. Thus a letter dated 7th December, 2001 was written by the complainant, which was received by respondent No.2 in presence of the STO. Thereafter on 7th December, 2001, respondent No.2 got recorded DD No. 38B at PS Naraina Vihar and a Non-Cognizable Report was recorded. Information about original Forms ST-35 being misplaced on 7th December, 2001 was also published in Punjab Kesari newspaper dated 9th December, 2001. Thus by getting a false report lodged and making a false declaration in respect of Forms ST-35, offence of cheating was committed. 15. In the criminal complaint the grievance was also made about furnishing invalid 'C' Forms for the supplies made in the year 1996-97, 1997-98 in jumbled form which was not acceptable to the Sales-Tax Department. 16. The appellant also claimed that despite request being made to issue 'C' Forms financial year-wise, needful was not done as a result of which the complainant had to pay the penalty and the Sales-Tax....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....same not tallying with the seals on the questioned counter foils of Forms ST-35. (v) The seals used by PW-1, the complainant for his business were not produced for comparison and merely because the questioned counter foils of Forms ST-35 had address of Manak Vihar where the complainant had office, is not a ground for terming the seals as forged due to difference in address. (vi) PW-6, Dayatri Dass, the accountant when questioned about the stamps of the Company, he gave an evasive reply that he did not remember of having any stamp (seal) with Manak Vihar address. He even did not remember having ever seen the stamps (seals) of the business concern of the complainant of Manak Vihar. All the respondents were well aware of the business address of PW-1 and if they wanted to forge the seal, it could have been with the address of the registered office rather than the branch office. (vii) The handwriting comparison did not lead to any conclusive opinion about commission of any forgery. (viii) PW-3, STO Sh.R.P.Sharma had testified that it was he who suggested to both the sides to get the duplicate form issued so that there is no loss caused to the State or to the dealer. It was due to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... offence of cheating relates to supply of one C-form for two financial years i.e. 1996-1997, 19971998. (v) It is admitted case of prosecution that accused Nos.2 and 3 supplied ten C-forms at the same time out of which only one form showing the sales for the period 1996-97 and 1997-98 was found invalid as it was pertaining to two financial years. (vi) It was pleaded to be an inadvertent mistake in the C-forms which was subsequently got corrected. (vii) PW-6, Dayatri Dass, accountant of the complainant admitted that out of the ten C-forms supplied, only one C-form was faulty against which complainant had to deposit the penalty. (viii) PW-8, SI Manoj Kumar deposed about his visit to the office of Additional Commissioner Sales Tax, Goa to make inquiry about the issuance of any duplicate C-forms to the sparrow group by Sales Tax Office and confirmation by the Sale Tax Office, Goa about issuance of one C-forms in jumbled form which were rectified by them as the same were issued inadvertently. He also deposed about receipt of letter dated 22nd March, 2003 to this effect from the Goa Sales Tax Commissioner. (ix) Inadvertent mistakes in one out of ten C-forms would not amount....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2002 : (2002) 4 SCC 85], Harijana Thirupala v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. [MANU/SC/0629/2002 : (2002) 6 SCC 470], C. Antony v. K.G. Raghavan Nair [MANU/SC/0968/2002 : (2003) 1 SCC 1], State of Karnataka v. K. Gopalakrishna [MANU/SC/0071/2005 : (2005) 9 SCC 291], State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran [MANU/SC/7187/2007 : (2007) 3 SCC 755] and Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka [MANU/SC/7108/2007 : (2007) 4 SCC 415]. It is not necessary to deal with these cases individually. Suffice it to say that this Court has consistently held that in dealing with appeals against acquittal, the appellate court must bear in mind the following: (i) There is presumption of innocence in favour of an accused person and such presumption is strengthened by the order of acquittal passed in his favour by the trial court, (ii) The accused person is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt when it deals with the merit of the appeal against acquittal, (iii) Though, the power of the appellate court in considering the appeals against acquittal are as extensive as its powers in appeals against convictions but the appellate court is generally loath in disturbing the finding of fact recorded by th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the appellant that in the application seeking anticipatory bail any admission about the forged seals being used on the counter foils of Forms ST-35 was made by the accused. Undisputedly wife of the appellant/complainant was also one of the Directors in M/s. Adige Computer Service Pvt. Ltd. in which respondent Nos. 2 to 4 herein were Directors. The business dealing was between the two companies and the fact that his own wife was one of the Directors speak about the business relations between the two companies. 26. The fact that the application for anticipatory bail was declined by learned ASJ could be the only consequence to follow on failure of the respondents herein to get the alleged forged seals recovered. 27. After dealing with the contentions of the petitioner for considering the 'admission' made before learned ASJ at the stage of prayer for release of anticipatory bail by accused T.R.Biyani - respondent No.2 herein, for decision of this appeal it is necessary to re-appreciate the evidence that has been adduced before the learned Trial Court in the form of two letters Ex.PW1/D and PW1/E written by appellant as Managing Director of M/s. Acron Electroplast Pvt. Ltd. and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... R.K.Enterprises to my office through Inspector for getting the matter resolved. It is correct that T.R.Biyani accused in the present case had stated that he had already given ST-35 forms to R.P.Kumar and he also further stated that on the counterfoil of the aforesaid ST-35 forms he got the signature of the dealer/accountant of R.P.Kumar. It is correct that on the same day the accountant of R.P.Kumar was also present along with him. It is correct that accused T.R.Biyani produced the counterfoil 8 ST-35 forms on which according to him he had got the signatures of the dealer/accountant on the back side of the said forms. (The said 8 ST-35 forms are shown to the witness who correctly identifies them to be the same that was produced by the accused T.R.Biyani on the said day before him. They are EXP1 to EXP8). It is correct that R.P.Kumar and his accountant told that the signature on the back side of all the ST-35 forms does not pertain to their accountant. It is wrong to suggest that the complainant R.P.Kumar said that the address mentioned on the back side of the ST-35 forms is not correct. Again said that I do not remember. Accused T.R.Biyani at the time of applying/requesting for th....