2026 (5) TMI 785

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....336 (3), 338, 318 (4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station Jaswant Nagar, District Etawah, during the pendency of the trial before the Court below. The bail application in the Court below was rejected by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (PA) Act/Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Etawah vide order dated 7.3.2026 and the applicants are languishing in jail since 3.2.2026. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants while pressing the bail plea has vehemently argued that the applicants are entirely innocent and have been falsely implicated in this very case crime number for ulterior motives. The FIR giving rise to the case crime number, in question, was lodged nominating one Sudip Kumar Proprietor of M/s Bharat Building Material with ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....arely within the precincts of Section 132(1)(b) and (c) of the CGST Act, 2017. The CGST Act, 2017 being a self contained fiscal code, the invocation of general penal law (BNS) solely to bypass the statutory safeguards of the special statute is nothing but colourable exercise of power. 5. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sharat Babu Digumarti versus Government of NCT of Delhi reported in 2017 (2) SCC 18 as also a decision of the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Deepak Singhal versus Union of India (WP No. 21641 of 2024). It is argued that where a Special Act governs a specific field and sets out a comprehensive scheme of penalties and procedures, the provisions of the general penal co....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nxious consideration to the respective submissions. 9. So far as the submission of learned counsel for the applicants that the allegations against the applicants i.e. issuing invoices without supply and availing ITC falls squarely within the precincts of Section 132(1)(b) and (c) of the CGST Act, 2017 and the CGST Act being a special statute shall exclude the invocation of the general penal provisions under Sections 61(2), 3(5), 340(2), 336 (3), 338, 318(4) of BNS is concerned, the Court is of the opinion that the precise issue was dealt with by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Govind Enterprises versus State of U.P. and 4 others, neutral citation 2019:AHC:99189-DB, which holds the field and has not been set aside. 10. Le....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... also the Penal Code and the Code, we find that Sections 69, 134, and 135 of the U.P. Act are applicable in respect of offences punishable under the U.P. Act. They have no application on offences punishable under the Penal Code. Further, there is no provision in the U.P. Act, at least shown to us, which may suggest that the provisions of the U.P. Act overrides or expressly or impliedly repeals the provisions of the Penal Code. There is also no bar in the U.P. Act on lodging an FIR under the Code for offences punishable under the Penal Code even though, for the same act/ conduct, prosecution can be launched under the U.P. Act. Rather, section 131 of the U.P. Act impliedly saves the provisions of the Penal Code by providing that no confiscati....