TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (12) TMI 848
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er mentioned on the bill was not valid. It was further found that the efforts were made to sneak the good loaded truck through the check post by scribing the forged TIN number of the concerned State on the bills showing the same to be on an out to out basis. It has also been stated in the said complaint that the main purpose of the aforesaid forgery was evasion of tax and causing revenue loss to the Government wherein the transport companies were fully involved. On the basis of the said complaint dated 01.12.2012, the aforesaid FIR was lodged on 01.12.2012. 3. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gopalganj, by an order dated 20.07.2013, has taken cognizance under Sections 415, 416, 417, 418, 419, 420, 406, 407, 468, 471, 407, 409, 120(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner herein and others. 4. The aforesaid order dated 20.07.2013 is under challenge in the present proceedings. 5. The only point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the opposite parties have already initiated proceedings under Sections 60(3) and Section 31(2) of the Bihar Value Added Tax, 2005 for the offences as alleged in the complaint petition, hence the present FIR could not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns to reopening of the cases wherein original order of assessment or re-assessment was passed, if the authorities finds that a reasonable ground exists to believe that any purchase of goods liable to tax under this Act has been either under assessed or has escaped assessment or has been assessed to tax at a lower rate etc. and in case where the dealer has concealed, omitted or failed to disclose full and correct particulars of sale or purchase etc., penalty would be levied. Similarly Section 60(3) of the Bihar Value Added Tax, 2005 provides for inspection, detention and search of any goods carrier for verifying as to whether any goods are being transported in contravention of the provisions and further provides that persons transporting goods or for the time incharge of goods shall render all possible assistance to the authorities carrying out the search. 9. Thus, it is apparent that the learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to demonstrate any provisions in the Bihar Value Added Tax, 2005, which provides for criminal prosecution of the person who has furnished forged TIN number of the purchaser on the bills pertaining to the goods being transported through the check post. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee had intentionally concealed his income and the Tribunal ultimately set aside the assessment holding that there is no material to hold that such income belongs to the assessee and the petition was filed before the Magistrate to drop the criminal proceedings and thereafter, an application was filed before the High Court under Section 482 CrPC to quash those criminal proceedings. This Court held that the whole question is whether the appellant made a false statement regarding the income which according to the assessing authority has escaped assessment and this issue was dependent on the conclusion reached by the Appellate Tribunal and hence the prosecution could not be sustained. In Uttam Chand v. ITO2 this Court held that in view of the finding recorded by the Tribunal on appraisal of the entire material on the record that the firm was a genuine firm and the assessee could not be prosecuted for filing false returns and, therefore, quashed the prosecution. In P. Jayappan v. S.K. Perumal, First ITO 3 this Court observed that the pendency of the reassessment proceedings under the Act cannot act as a bar to the institution of the criminal proceedings and postponement or adjournm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the prosecution are the same in the two trials. A plea of autrefois acquit is not proved unless it is shown that the verdict of acquittal of the previous charge necessarily involves an acquittal of the latter. 15. The Constitution Bench of this Court in S.A. Venkataraman v. Union of India3 explained the scope of doctrine of double jeopardy, observing that in order to attract the provisions of Article 20(2) of the Constitution, there must have been both prosecution and punishment in respect of the same offence. The words "prosecuted" and "punished" are to be taken not distributively so as to mean prosecuted or punished. Both the factors must coexist in order that the operation of the clause may be attracted. 16. In Om Parkash Gupta v. State of U.P.4 and State of M.P. v. Veereshwar Rao Agnihotri5 this Court has held that the prosecution and conviction or acquittal under Section 409 IPC do not debar trial of the accused on a charge under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 because the two offences are not identical in sense, import and content. 17. In Leo Roy Frey v. Supt., District Jail6, proceedings were taken against certain persons in the first instance....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....had caused disappearance of the evidence of two offences under Sections 330 and 348 IPC and, therefore, he was alleged to have committed two separate offences under Section 201 IPC. It was held that neither Section 71 IPC nor Section 26 of the General Clauses Act came to the rescue of the accused and the accused was liable to be convicted for two sets of offences under Section 201 IPC, though it would be appropriate not to pass two separate sentences. A similar view has been reiterated by this Court in Kharkan v. State of U.P.9. 20. In Bhagwan Swarup Lal Bishan Lal v. State of Maharashtra10, while dealing with the issue, this Court held: (AIR pp. 688-89, paras 11-12) "11. ... The previous case in which this accused was convicted was in regard to a conspiracy to commit criminal breach of trust in respect of the funds of the Jupiter and that case was finally disposed of by this Court in Sardul Singh Caveeshar v. State of Bombay11. Therein it was found that Caveeshar was a party to the conspiracy and also a party to the fraudulent transactions entered into by the Jupiter in his favour. The present case relates to a different conspiracy altogether. The conspiracy in question was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... resulted therefrom constituted a different offence, he may again be tried for that different offence arising out of the consequences, if the consequences had not happened or were not known to the court to have happened, at the time when he was convicted. (4) A person who has once been tried by a court of competent jurisdiction for an offence and has been either convicted or acquitted shall not be tried for the same offence or for any other offence arising out of the same facts, for which a different charge from the one made against him might have been made or for which he might have been convicted under the Code of Criminal Procedure." (emphasis added) 25. In P.V. Mohammad Barmay Sons v. Director of Enforcement19 it was held: (SCC p. 732, para 11) "11. The further contention that under the Customs Act, 1962 for the selfsame contravention, the penalty proceedings terminated in favour of the appellant, is of little avail to the appellant for the reasons that the two Acts operate in different fields, one for contravention of FERA and the second for evasion of [excise] duty. The mere fact that the penalty proceedings for evasion of the [excise] duty had ended in favour of the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e rebutted only by the person who draws the cheque. Such a requirement is not there in the offences under IPC. In the case under the NI Act, if a fine is imposed, it is to be adjusted to meet the legally enforceable liability. There cannot be such a requirement in the offences under IPC. The case under the NI Act can only be initiated by filing a complaint. However, in a case under IPC such a condition is not necessary. 39. There may be some overlapping of facts in both the cases but the ingredients of the offences are entirely different. Thus, the subsequent case is not barred by any of the aforesaid statutory provisions." (iii) (2011) 1 SCC 534 [Institute of Chartered Accounts of India vs. Vimal Kumar Surana and Another] para- 20,21,22,23,24 and 36: "20. In other words, if the particular act of a member of the Institute or a non-member or a company results in contravention of the provisions contained in Section 24 or sub-section (1) of Sections 24-A, 25 or 26 and such act also amounts to criminal misconduct which is defined as an offence under IPC, then a complaint can be filed by or under the order of the Council or of the Central Government under Section 28, which may ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....shment for such offences. If it is held that a person acting in violation of Section 24 or contravening sub-section (1) of Sections 24-A and 26 of the Act can be punished only under the Act even though his act also amounts to one or more offence(s) defined under IPC and that too on a complaint made in accordance with Section 28, then the provisions of Chapter VII will become discriminatory and may have to be struck down on the ground of violation of Article 14. 24. Such an unintended consequence can be and deserves to be avoided in interpreting Sections 24-A, 25 and 26 keeping in view the settled law that if there are two possible constructions of a statute, then the one which leads to anomaly or absurdity and makes the statute vulnerable to the attack of unconstitutionality should be avoided in preference to the other which makes it rational and immune from the charge of unconstitutionality. That apart, the court cannot interpret the provisions of the Act in a manner which will deprive the victim of the offences defined in Sections 416, 463, 464, 468 and 471 of his right to prosecute the wrongdoer by filing the first information report or complaint under the relevant provisions ....