TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (1) TMI 557
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and Mr. Mahesh Kumar, Advocates for Impleading party-State of Chhattisgarh. JUDGMENT CRL.M.A. 10323/2023 & CRL.M.A. 19314/2023 (Both for stay) 1. These are applications under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C.") for stay of operation of the impugned part of the order dated 06.04.2023 passed by the learned ACMM (Special Acts), Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in CT Case No. 1183/2022 titled as "Income Tax Office Vs. Anil Tuteja & Ors". 2. The brief facts culled from the impugned order dated 06.04.2023 are as follows: "A complaint u/s 200 Cr.P.C was made by Income Tax Office through Mr. Seuj Kumar Saikia, DDIT, Inv. Unit-1(4), New Delhi, alleging commission of offence punishable u/s 276C(1)/277/278 read with Section 278B/278E of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'The Act') and section 120B/191/199/200/204 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short IPC). Since, the present complaint was filed by a public servant acting in discharge of his official duties and in course of his employment, so the formal examination of the AR of complainant was dispensed with, in terms of proviso (a) of Secti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urther investigation revealed whatsapp conversations between accused no. 1 and 4 regarding proposals of percentage shares of manufacture of country liquor, beer amongst various distillers of Raipur for FY 2019-20. They also discussed about the shares to be allotted to each group of distillers and their objections etc. From chats of accused no. 4 information about collection of bribes from liquor and other businesses by him and transfer of that money to accused no. 1 is unveiled. Photos of Rs. 10 and Rs. 20 currency notes were exchanged on whatsapp between accused no. 1 and 4 in order to communicate in code language about exchange of money. Issues of allotment of mines and payment of royalty etc. were also parts of chats of accused no. 1 and 4. Accused no. 9 M/s Lingraj Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. is a company incorporated in Kolkata on 12.02.2009 and is allegedly indirectly controlled by accused no. 1 and 2. Accused no. 9 is purportedly managed by one CA Vikas Agarwal (accused no. 7). Bank account numbers were shared by accused no. 7 with accused no. 2 which was followed by transfer of money into the bank accounts of different companies from bank account of accused no. 9. It was a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ss from Singapore and deleted entire data available in the mail. Whatsapp chats of accused no 1 and 3 also showed that accused no. 3 wrote that her personal secretary Jay will give money to Chaitanya Baghel (S/o Chief Minister of Chhattisgarh). A diary maintained by accused no. 3 was also recovered from her residence wherein various transactions done over the years were recorded about which no satisfactory replies were given by accused no. 3. Chats between accused no. 1 and 3 using code words and abbreviations were also discovered which showed movement of unaccounted cash of crores of rupees. Accused no. 6 Vikas Agarwal @ Subu Agarwal exchanged whatsapp messages with accused no. 4 regarding accounting of collection of bribes/commission from sale of liquor showing that he was also privy to and involved in illegal activity of raising and movement of unaccounted cash for accused no. 1. As per the complaint commission/bribes amounting to Rs. 14.41 crores went to accused no. 1 between 28.07.2019 to 20.12.2019." 3. The petitioner/complainant being aggrieved of that part of the impugned order whereby the learned ACMM had directed the return of the complaint to the extent of those offen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rsons on the ground that the Courts in Delhi lack the territorial jurisdiction over such offences, which is impermissible in law. 5. Learned ASG submits that the learned Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence must not necessarily have territorial jurisdiction to try the case as his power to take cognizance of the offence is not impaired by territorial jurisdiction. He further submits that even the provisions of Section 179 Cr.P.C. do not restrict the powers of any court to take cognizance of the offence. He relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Trisuns Chemical Industry v. Rajesh Agarwal reported as 1999 8 SCC 686, especially to Para Nos. 11 and 13 to submit that the Court cannot be impaired by territorial jurisdiction during pre-cognizance stage. 6. Learned ASG further submits that this is a case of criminal conspiracy which is a continuing offence and continues to subsist and committed wherever one of the conspirators does an act or series of acts. In this regard, he relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ajay Aggarwal v. Union of India & Ors. reported in (1993) 3 SCC 609, specifically to Para 25 wherein it was held that so long as the performance o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... there is continuity in action and purpose which starts from the conspiracy to receipt of undisclosed income and extends to concealing such income from the returns of the respondents and concertedly evading and deflecting the authorities, including by way of the statements given under Section 131 (1A) of the I.T. Act within the territory of Delhi. Learned ASG contends that the respondents, in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy, gave misleading statements to the petitioner authority and as it is an admitted position of law that the overt acts committed in pursuance of the conspiracy would form part of the same transaction, the said giving of statements to the petitioner authority in the present case would form part of the same transaction, thus invoking the territorial jurisdiction of Courts of Delhi. 11. Learned ASG relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in Asit Bhattacharjee v. Hanuman Prasad Ojha & Ors. reported in (2007) 5 SCC 786 wherein it was held that where a part of cause of action has arisen, the police station concerned situated within the jurisdiction of the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance under Section 190(1) Cr.P.C., will have the jurisdict....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ining the same questions and appreciating the same evidence. That apart, there would also be a risk of the second Court coming to a different conclusion from that of the first Court. 16. On this basis, Mr. Raju submits that the acts of criminal conspiracy and willful evasion of tax committed by the accused respondents extended to the local area of the NCT of Delhi by way of statements given in concert by the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in order to evade and deflect the Tax Authorities and thereby, giving the Courts in Delhi the territorial jurisdiction over the offences alleged in the complaint of the petitioner. 17. On the issue of maintainability, Mr. Raju draws support from the judgment in Prabhu Chawla Vs. State of Rajasthan & Another reported in (2016) 16 SCC 30 wherein the Supreme Court made it clear that since Section 397 Cr.P.C. is attracted against all orders other than interlocutory, a contrary view would limit the availability of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. only to petty interlocutory orders, which is wholly unwarranted. On this basis, learned ASG submits that the present petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is maintainable regardless of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bmissions and to further emphasize upon the scope and jurisdiction in respect of Section 397 Cr.P.C. and Section 482 Cr.P.C., learned senior counsel had relied and read out the relevant paras from the following judgments:- a) Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander (2012) 9 SCC 460 Para 20 and 21. b) Madhu Limaye Vs. The State of Maharashtra (1977) 4 SCC 551 Para 8 to 10. c) Neeharika Infrastructure (O) Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315 Para 11, 34, 36 to 41, 58, 59, 63 and 77. 23. Learned Senior Counsel directly attacked the contention laid on behalf of the petitioner that learned ACMM should have taken the cognizance and then decided the aspect of territorial jurisdiction of the present complaint or rather an inquiry for the said purpose needs to be conducted, and submits that the same is absolutely erroneous and the inquiry for the said purpose was duly conducted by the learned ACMM while at the stage of taking cognizance of the present complaint. Learned Senior Counsel further invites attention of this Court to page 5 of the impugned order to submit that the learned ACMM had decided the issue of cognizance after conducting a proper inquir....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eged to have been committed in Chhattisgarh and no consequence has ensued anywhere else outside Chhattisgarh, the learned ACMM is empowered to consider the question of jurisdiction at the stage of inquiry. He submits that Section 179 Cr.P.C enables and empowers the learned MM to conduct an inquiry on the question of jurisdiction to ascertain as to whether any offence or its consequence had ensued within the local limits of its territorial jurisdiction. He further brings the attention of this Court to Para 14 of the said judgement wherein it was held that the Magistrate is empowered to consider the question of jurisdiction at the stage of inquiry and trial. 27. Learned Senior Counsel also submits that the petitioner is actually pursuing the present complaint as a proxy litigation on behalf of the Enforcement Directorate despite there being no predicate offence on which ED can take action against the respondents. This is despite the fact that the ED itself was restrained by the Supreme Court against initiating any coercive action. 28. Learned Senior Counsel next argues that mere making of statements cannot be said to be part of the conspiracy by drawing analogy with the stateme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ior Counsel had provided a brief flavour of the entire alleged conspiracy to submit that just by making the assessment centralized does not confer the jurisdiction of Criminal Courts at Delhi of the offences alleged to have been committed in Chhattisgarh. Learned Senior Counsel contends that the same was examined in detail by the learned ACMM while passing the impugned order and any action thereagainst would tantamount to taking away the discretion which was rightly exercised by proper application of mind and applying the Local Jurisdiction Rule, being the "thumb rule of jurisdiction", which could not be the intent of the judgment in Trisuns Chemical Industry (supra). Further that, rightly or wrongly, the learned ACMM had himself bifurcated the offences on the basis of jurisdiction, for which power and discretion is statutorily conferred, as envisaged under the Code. 33. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the offences alleged against the respondents are under the Income Tax Act and therefore, the offences, if any, give rise to different causes of action and separate set of offences committed by different individuals could not be clubbed to become part of the assessment ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rocess of law or exceptional circumstance to justify the filing and maintainability of the present petition here under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 37. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that even as per Section 201 and the entire conspectus of the Chapter-XIV of the Cr.P.C., it is the discretion which is bestowed upon the learned MM to try and take cognizance of the offences which further also provides that the learned MM should mandatorily return it, to be presented before the proper court, if there is lack of jurisdiction. Thus, the learned MM had rightly done so by returning the complaint and not dismissing it. The petitioner has been unable to show that they are remediless in such a situation. 38. Learned Senior Counsel further points out that the present complaint was filed on 11.03.2021 under the alleged sections based upon which the ED has also registered an ECIR under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred as "PMLA"). Learned Senior Counsel specifically points out to this Court that there is no offence under the Income Tax Act which is Scheduled Offence under the PMLA and the entire edifice of the PMLA proceedings against Respondent Nos. 1 and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the complaint submits that as regards the income aspect is concerned, the incorrect declaration of income or concealment of the unaccounted income is only qua the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and not against other respondents. 42. Mr. Mohit Mathur, learned Senior Counsel submits that there is a clear dichotomy drawn out in the complaint itself as the involvement of the respondent No. 4 does not figure in the complaint at all except the allegation against the respondent No. 4 for the offences under section 278 of I.T. Act read with section 120B IPC. The said provision is extracted hereunder:- "278. Abetment of false return, etc.-If a person abets or induces in any manner another person to make and deliver an account or a statement or declaration relating to 6[any income or any fringe benefits chargeable to tax] which is false and which he either knows to be false or does not believe to be true or to commit an offence under sub-section (1) of section 276C, he shall be punishable,- (i) in a case where the amount of tax, penalty or interest which would have been evaded, if the declaration, account or statement had been accepted as true, or which is wilfully attempted....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the abettor is necessarily prequel to the act of the person who is committing the offence. An act to become an offence must succeed the abetment, therefore the abetment is done prior to the act having been completed. 45. Learned Senior Counsel also submits that the respondent No. 4 is accused of abetting the offence allegedly committed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in not filing the returns. He further submits that to re-create the offence, the petitioners have enumerated all the other offences qua the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and the learned Trial Court has analysed and decided one part of the act as completed and as regards to the respondent No. 4, the learned Trial Court cannot take the cognizance of section 278 I.T. Act and should have tried separately. On this, he drew the attention of this Court to section 218 Cr.P.C. The same is extracted hereunder:- "218. Separate charges for distinct offences. (1) For every distinct offence of which any person is accused there shall be a separate charge, and every such charge shall be tried separately: Provided that where the accused person, by an application in writing, so desires and the Magistrate is of op....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ell as other law enforcement agencies are facing difficulties in discharging their functions. In this regard, reference is made to the Order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 18.07.2023 in Yash Tuteja & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors., WP(Crl.) No. 153 of 2023 filed by the Respondents No. 1 and 2 herein before the Hon'ble Supreme Court challenging proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 initiated on the basis of Scheduled offences that form a part of the Ct. Case No. 1183 of 2022. By way of the Order dated 18.07.2023, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:- "On hearing learned counsel for the parties it transpires that the complaints have been returned, the income tax authorities having taken that to a further Court in appeal and there being any absence of stay, apart from the order already passed of no coercive action, the concerned respondent authorities must stay their hands in all manner. Ordered accordingly. On our query of learned ASG, we clarify that if the stay is obtained qua that order, it open to the respondents to move this Court for obtaining appropriate order." 51. Mr. Mathur, learned Senior Counsel submits that when the Supreme ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ers which may be exercised by the High Court under sub-section (1) of section 401. (2) Where any proceeding by way of revision is commenced before a Sessions Judge under sub-section (1), the provisions of sub-sections (2), (3), (4) and (5) of section 401 shall, so far as may be, apply to such proceeding and references in the said sub-sections to the High Court shall be construed as references to the Sessions Judge. (3) Where any application for revision is made by or on behalf of any person before the Sessions Judge, the decision of the Sessions Judge thereon in relation to such person shall be final and no further proceeding by way of revision at the instance of such person shall be entertained by the High Court or any other Court." 57. Mr. Tyagi, learned counsel submits that the allegations against the respondent No. 5 is that, the illegal money earned was collected and handed over by respondent No. 5 to the respondent Nos. 1 to 3. He further makes it clear by submitting that the respondent No. 5 was not earning any income from that. 58. Learned counsel submits the only allegation qua the respondent No. 5 is recorded in paragraph 5 of the impugned order da....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ravel to Delhi every time. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO. 8 65. Mr. P. Roychaudhuri, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 8 though adopts the arguments of Mr. Mohit Mathur, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No. 4, put forth the following contentions. 66. Learned counsel submits that there is no Income Tax case pending against the respondent No. 8. The allegations against the respondent No. 8 is of offences under Section 278 IT Act and Section 120B IPC. He further emphasizes on the principle that Section 278 IT Act and Section 120B IPC cannot co-exist for the reason that the ingredients of offence under Section 278 IT Act is one of inducement, whereas the ingredient of offence under Section 120-B IPC is of conspiracy, which are two distinct offences having no co-relation. 67. Mr. P. Roychaudhuri draws the attention of this Court to Memo of Parties and submits that the complaint was instituted by Income Tax Office through Deputy Director of Income Tax (hereinafter referred to as "DDIT") obtaining prior permission of competent authority. The affidavit was filed by the Additional Director of Income Tax (Investigation) rather than DDIT, who is th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ay application against the impugned order, is concerned only with the prosecution of the present case and not with the prosecution being conducted by other investigation agencies. 73. He further submits that the question before this court is only limited to the jurisdiction of the Court trying the present case and if the present stay application is allowed, the consequence of it would be that the complaint would be restored to its original number. On this, Mr. Kumar vehemently argues that until this Court has a definitive view on the issue of territorial jurisdiction, which is the very root of the proceedings, the learned ACMM cannot, in abhorrent subordination, proceed further and take any decision till the present case has been finally decided by this court. 74. Learned counsel submits for the sake of argument that even if all the facts in the complaint are assumed against the respondents herein, there is no prejudice caused to the prosecution and there is no cause or requirement to pass any orders in the present application. 75. Mr. Kumar refers to the order dated 18.07.2023 passed by the Supreme Court wherein the petitioner authority was directed to stay their hands in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndent no. 10 is similarly placed as respondent no. 8, who are not being proceeded by the Income Tax authorities. They have not been called to give any statement and as such, cannot be tied to the offence of conspiracy, that too retrospectively, merely on the basis of alleged false statements given by respondent nos. 1 to 3 to the petitioner authorities. He further submits that foundational facts of the offence of conspiracy are of the same transaction, however, none of the essential elements of conspiracy such as the offences constituting a part of the same transaction or continuity of action, are satisfied by the allegations made in the complaint. Looking at it factually, the respondent no. 10 is not concerned with the statements given by the respondent nos. 1 to 3 or with the filing, preparation or verification of the income tax returns by them individually, to be even associated with the alleged offence of conspiracy, and on this basis, submits that the complaint is very cryptic on this aspect. 79. Learned counsel refers to the complaint to point out that the two other groups i.e. Bhatia Group and one Sh. Vivek Dhand (Retd. IAS, posted as RERA Chairman) along with their accom....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty. 82. It is further mentioned that the offences against the respondent nos. 1 to 3 are made on the entire conspectus of the searches conducted as well as the statements recorded. On this basis, it is submitted that no search was ever conducted upon the respondent no. 10, and no statements were taken of him. 83. Mr. Kumar submits that the complaint is misconceived for the reason that it does not even attempt to lay down the foundational facts, and merely a brazen attempt has been made to pull in a malafide prosecution against respondent no. 10. 84. He also submits that the allegations qua the respondent no. 10 of abetting and facilitating the said accused persons, is dated back to 2010 and there is no whisper as to how the allegations against respondent no. 10 forms part of the same transaction forming an offence of conspiracy, except a very cryptic mention of the allegation that all the accused persons worked in cahoots with each other, in the said complaint. 85. Mr. Kumar questions the validity and legality of the notification of the CBDT SO 2914(E) relied upon by the petitioner wherein it is stated that the Principal Director/Director or Income Tax (Investigation), ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant/intervenor State of Chhattisgarh has moved the present impleadment application bearing CRL. M.A. No. 19972/2023 for impleadment in the present petition on the premise that the State of Chhattisgarh had intervened in the Supreme Court proceedings vide order dated 16.05.2023 and notice was issued to the State of Chhattisgarh. Thus, making the State of Chhattisgarh a necessary party. 89. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that on 18.07.2023 when the order was passed, the State of Chhattisgarh had appeared. Mr. Krishnan, learned Senior Counsel drew attention of this Court to section 280B of I.T. Act to address the issue of jurisdiction. The same is extracted hereunder:- "280B. Offences triable by Special Court.-Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),- (a) the offences punishable under this Chapter shall be triable only by the Special Court, if so designated, for the area or areas or for cases or class or group of cases, as the case may be, in which the offence has been committed: Provided that a court competent to try offences under section 292,- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ior Counsel refers to the judgement dated 15.06.2023 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 2417 of 2010 titled as A. Srinivasulu vs. The State Rep. By the Inspector of Police reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 900. The relevant relied upon portion is extracted hereunder:- "42. In D. Devaraja vs. Owais Sabeer Hussain, this Court explained that sanction is required not only for acts done in the discharge of official duty but also required for any act purported to be done in the discharge of official duty and/ or act done under colour of or in excess of such duty or authority. This Court also held that to decide whether sanction is necessary, the test is whether the act is totally unconnected with official duty or whether there is a reasonable connection with the official duty." 93. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the power under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India and section 482 Cr.P.C., does not empower or entitle this Court to usurp the jurisdiction of the learned Sessions Court, which is in seisin of the revision unless there is an extraordinary situation. He further submits that law does not countenance parallel proceedings being conducted simu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent:- "2. The sole question for consideration in this appeal is whether the offence of conspiracy alleged to have been committed at Calcutta can be tried by the Court of Session at Madras. 3. We have held this day, in Purushottamdas Dalmia v. State of West Bengal that the court having jurisdiction to try the offence of criminal conspiracy can also try offences committed in pursuance of that conspiracy even if those offences were committed outside the jurisdiction of that court, as the provisions of Section 239 CrPC, are not controlled by the provisions of Section 177 CrPC, which do not create an absolute prohibition against the trial of offences by a court other than the one within whose jurisdiction the offence is committed. On a parity of reasoning, the court having jurisdiction to try the offences committed in pursuance of the conspiracy, can try the offence of conspiracy even if it was committed outside its jurisdiction. We therefore hold that the order under appeal is correct and, accordingly, dismiss this appeal." 95.3 He submits that the case and assessment records, all evidences including the records of statements of the Accused No. 1-3 are in Delhi. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rh seeks to introduce by way of its impleadment application. 69. Without prejudice to the above, it is submitted that there is no requirement to seek sanction u/s 197 CrPC as the allegations in the complaint would demonstrate that the same would not have been in discharge of official duty. It is well-settled that Section 197 of the CrPC does not extend its protective cover to every act or omission done by a public servant in service but restricts its scope of operation to only those acts or omissions which are done by a public servant in discharge of official duty. Hence, the act or omission for which the accused was charged has to have a reasonable connection with discharge of his duty, for Section 197 to apply. (See HBB Gill & Anr. vs. The King AIR (1948) PC 128; Phanindra Chandra Neogy vs. The King AIR (1949) PC 117; Ronald Wood Mathams v. State Of West Bengal, AIR 1954 SCC at Para 11; Kalicharan Mahapatra v. State of Orissa, (1998) 6 SCC 411 at Para 13; Army Headquarters v. CBI, (2012) 6 SCC 228 at Para 42; Choudhary Parveen Sultana vs. State of West Bengal & Anr., (2009) 3 SCC 398 at Paras 18-21; State of Bihar & Anr. vs. P.P. Sharma (1992) Supp 1 SCC 222 at Paras 64-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....issue of conspiracy can be proved or disproved only during trial at the time of evidence? iii. Whether the petitioner/complainant has made out a case for stay of the impugned order? 101. To appreciate the aforesaid issue (i), this Court needs to consider the law laid down, particularly in the cases of Chandra Deo Singh v. Prokash Chandra AIR 1963 SC 1430 ; Nagawaa v. V.S. Konjalgi (1976) 3 SCC 736 ; Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia v. Shaileshbhai Mohanbhai Patel (2012) 10 SCC 517 ; Meenakshi Jain v. State (2012) 194 DLT 745 ; Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal (2004) 7 SCC 33, which are succinctly provided in the judgement of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WP. Crl. 2864/2019 titled as Mahua Moitra v. State, reported in 2019 SCC OnLine Del 10666. The relevant paras are extracted hereunder :- "23. I have considered the rival submissions. Law on the point of intervention by the prospective accused at pre-summoning stage in a complaint case before Ld. MM is well settled by series of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In case titled "Chandra Deo Singh v. Prokash Chandra, (1964) 1 SCR 639" the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under; "7. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....012) 10 SCC 517" the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held under; "46. The legal position is fairly well-settled that in the proceedings under Section 202 of the Code the accused/suspect is not entitled to be heard on the question whether the process should be issued against him or not. As a matter of law, upto the stage of issuance of process, the accused cannot claim any right of hearing..." 28. Similarly in "Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal, (2004) 7 SCC 33" the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held under; "14... In none of these stages the Code has provided for hearing the summoned accused, for obvious reasons because this is only a preliminary stage and the stage of hearing of the accused would only arise at a subsequent stage provided for in the latter provision in the Code. It is true as held by this Court in Mathew's case before issuance of summons the Magistrate should be satisfied that there is sufficient ground for proceeding with the complaint but that satisfaction is to be arrived at by the inquiry conducted by him as contemplated under sections 200 and 202, and the only stage of dismissal of the complaint arises under section 203 of the Code at....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed no. 8 under section 202 and 203 Cr.P.C is pending disposal. The application was filed inter-alia stating that (i) This court lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint, (ii) Inquiry u/s 202 Cr.P.C is mandatory, (iii) The cognizance of offences pertaining to IPC be declined as they are not part of same transaction which may disclose commission of offence under the Income Tax Act, (iv) Violation of extant CBDT circular dated 09.09.2019 and (v) The complaint in the present form is not maintainable. Reliance was placed by the applicant on the judgment of "State of Bihar & Anr. v. P. P. Sharma, IAS & Anr. 1991 AIR 1260", to submit that he can intervene and ought to be heard at this stage of proceedings. Detailed, para wise reply on each of the contentions raised by the applicant had been filed by the complainant and additionally, the maintainability of the application filed by the intervenor has been questioned. Reliance has been placed by complainant upon the Apex Court judgments in the case of "Nupur Talwar v. CBI & Anr. Review Petition (Crl.) No. 85 of 2012, M/s Cheminova India Limited & Anr. v. State of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of complainant for his examination in terms of order dated 01.08.2022 on 02.12.2022." (Quoted as it is) 104. Applying the ratio in Mohua Moitra and other cases to the facts of the present case, it is clear that the learned ACMM had committed a grave illegality and irregularity of procedure by not only entertaining the application but also hearing detailed arguments on behalf of the proposed accused person, admittedly at a stage when cognizance was yet to be taken. In other words, learned ACMM appears to have not only committed a procedural irregularity but simultaneously also violated the law as declared by the Constitutional Courts. 105. Learned senior counsel for Respondents 1, 2 and 3 had argued at great lengths on facts in respect of whether learned ACMM at Delhi had any territorial jurisdiction, whether conspiracy arose or not, and whether there were any extraordinary or special circumstances arising in the present case entitling the petitioners to approach this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In the considered opinion of this Court, the aforesaid arguments, though very attractive at the first blush, however, are not able to overcome the embargo or the bar created by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....used no. 9 which in turn either kept it or transferred the same to the beauty saloon business run and owned by accused no. 2 and wife of accused no. 1. None of these acts had occurred within the territory of Delhi. The criminal conspiracy was not hatched at Delhi, the destruction of evidence was not done at Delhi, wilfull evasion of tax or false verification of income tax returns did not occur at Delhi. No abetment of aforementioned offences was done at or from Delhi. No monetary transaction was executed at Delhi. The jurisdiction with regard to these offences is either at Kolkata or at Raipur or Bhilai or at other places of Chhattisgarh where the conspiracy was put into effect by accused persons. The complaint with regard to these offences qua all the accused persons is returned in original and the complainant may present the same before the court of competent jurisdiction...." 107. Thus, so far as issue (i) is concerned, this Court is of the firm opinion that the respondents had no locus to either file an application or raise any objections qua territorial jurisdiction, conspiracy or bias etc. at the pre-cognizance stage. Equally, the learned Magistrate had, by entertaining th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ious overt acts. If some of the overt acts were committed outside the jurisdiction of the court trying the offence of criminal conspiracy and if the law be that such overt acts could not be tried by that court, it would mean that either the prosecution is forced to give up its right of prosecuting those accused for the commission of those overt acts or that both the prosecution and the accused are put to unnecessary trouble inasmuch as the prosecution will have to produce the same evidence a second time and the accused will have to test the credibility of that evidence a second time. The time of another court will be again spent a second time in determining the same question. There would be the risk of the second court coming to a different conclusion from that of the first court. It may also be possible to urge in the second court that it is not competent to come to a different conclusion in view of what has been said by this Court in Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab at p. 422: "The acquittal of Pritam Singh Lohara of that charge was tantamount to a finding that the prosecution had failed to establish the possession of the revolver Ext. P-56 by him. The possession of that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of income tax returns did not occur at Delhi. No abetment of aforementioned offences was done at or from Delhi. No monetary transaction was executed at Delhi. The jurisdiction with regard to these offences is either at Kolkata or at Raipur or Bhilai or at other places of Chhattisgarh where the conspiracy was put into effect by accused persons. The complaint with regard to these offences qua all the accused persons is returned in original and the complainant may present the same before the court of competent jurisdiction..." 112. A plain simple perusal of the relevant portion as extracted above leads this Court to an inference that the learned ACMM had yet again misdirected itself into believing as to where, in the first place, the conspiracy was hatched, where, when and how it blossomed and as to whether the alleged conspiracy concluded or not in Delhi and reached the definitive conclusion that the said alleged conspiracy had indeed not hatched in Delhi. Moreover, the learned Magistrate had also definitively concluded that the conspiracy had indeed ended in Chhattisgarh and no part of the said conspiracy continued till Delhi. This conclusion could not and ought not to have been ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s contended that there was no lawful occasion for the ld. Trial Court to bifurcate the complaint into two parts, even though, the allegations in both the said parts are in respect of the same transaction. He has further contended that the first part of the complaint, on which the ld. Trial Court took the cognizance, should also have been returned along with the bifurcated part which has been directed to be returned. He has contended that the ld. Trial Court has committed a grave error in unlawfully bifurcating a single complaint based on the same cause of action/transaction. 4. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has further contended that the statements of the petitioner which were recorded in Delhi on 28.09.2020, 08.10.2020 and 02.02.2021 u/s. 131 (1A) of the Act before DDIT, Unit 1(4), Delhi, were not financial statements as stipulated under Section 277 of the Act. They were misconstrued to be statements under the said section by the ld. Trial Court. He has contended that since they were not financial statements as prescribed in section 277 of the Act, the ld. Trial Court committed a grave error in summoning the accused for commission of the offence under the said section. I....