TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (8) TMI 1697
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....No. 5056/2023. Mr. Prafull Bharat, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mateen Siddique, Counsel for the applicant in MCRC No. 5143/2023. Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, Counsel for the respondent. Heard on the applications (IA No. 1/2023) for grant of ad-interim bail to applicant - Nitesh Purohit in MCRC No.4911/2023 and applicant - Trilok Singh Dhillon in MCRC No. 5056/2023 (both relates to ECIR No. ECIR/RPZO/11/2022). Ms. Nitya Ramakrishnan, learned Senior Counsel for applicant - Nitesh Purohit, would submit that in the matter of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and others Vs. Union of India and others (Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.4634/2014 and other connected matters, vide judgment dated 27.7.2022, the following has been observed in para 33 :....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s unearthed large number of scams of corruption with regard to Sectors such as agriculture, mining, liquor trade and licensing in the State of Chhattisgarh and it has been found that the present applicants along with other co-accused persons are involved in movement of unaccounted cash through different channels. Therefore, the Income Tax Department has made a complaint under Section 200 of the Cr. P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 276 (C) (1)/277/278 read with Section 278B/278E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and Section 120B/191/199/200/204 of the IPC. Learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (in short "ACMM") vide his order dated 6.4.2023, in the last operative paragraph of the said order, held that the offence under S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gh Court of Delhi has not passed any interim order after taking note of the fact that the order dated 6.4.2023 has been stayed in its entirety but the accused persons had approached the Sessions Court seeking clarification in Criminal Revision No. 224/2023 though notice has not been served to the Department. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari (Central), Court, New Delhi vide order dated 13.7.2023 made the following observation clarifying the earlier order, which reads as under : "At this stage, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the previous order dated 17.04.2023 is being misconstrued to the effect that the entire impugned order dated 06.04.2023 has been directed to be stayed. On the face of it, there....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed accordingly. On our query of learned ASG, we clarify that if the stay is obtained qua that order, it is open to the respondents to move this court for obtaining appropriate order." Learned counsel for the respondent submits that as the Income Tax Department has already challenged the order dated 6.4.2023 passed by the ACMM. However, the said matter is pending consideration and has not yet finalised and it was directed to be listed on 18.8.2023. He would further submit that even in WP(Crl.) No.153/2023, wherein, certain liberty has been reserved in favour of the Department, the same has not yet been finalised and is still pending consideration before the Supreme Court, which is listed for consideration on 21.8.2023. He would s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Supreme Court has already directed not to take any coercive steps till the next date of hearing with regard to the said FIR, which has been registered on 30.7.2023, however, the investigation has not been stayed. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, particularly the fact that as the concerned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate has already returned the complaint to be filed before the competent Court of Shyna territorial jurisdiction though the said finding has been challenged by the Income Tax Department before the High Court of Delhi, but as on today, no Scheduled offence has been registered and further considering that the other co-accused has already been enlarged on ad-interim bail by this Court ....