TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 947
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng with Mr. Digvijay S. Kachare, Ms. Saili Dhuru, Mr. Anay Joshi, Mr. Sumitkumar Nimbalkar and Ms. Sanika Joshi, Advocates. For the Respondent-State: Mr. B. B. Kulkarni, APP. JUDGMENT : 1. The challenge in this revision application is order passed by the learned Special Judge, Daman, below Exhibit-47 in Special Case No. 1 of 2015 whereby the discharge application preferred by the applicants came to be rejected. 2. Two charge-sheets have been filed in the same FIR alleging illegal gratification and excise/VAT evasion and forgery. 3. Brief facts of the case are, it is alleged that during the period 2005 to 2010, the applicants in conspiracy with officials of the excise department (Co-accused) evaded excise duty and VAT to the t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....quested to allow the application. He relied on 1. Radheshyam Kejriwal vs State of West Bengal (2011) 3 SCC 581. 2. Ghulam Hassan Beigh vs. Mohammad Maqbool Magrey & Ors. - [(2022) SCC OnLine SC 913] 3. Bhawna Bai vs. Ghanshyam & Ors. - [(2020) 2 SCC 217] 4. Nitya Dharmananda alias K. Lenin & Anr. vs. Gopal Sheelum Reddy & Anr. - [(2018) 2 SCC 93] 5. State of Orissa vs. Debendra Nath Padhi - [(2005) 1 SCC 568] 6. Radheshyam Kejriwal vs. State of West Bengal & Anr. - [(2011) 3 SCC 581] 7. Karnataka Emta Coal Mines Limited vs. Central Bureau of Investigation - [2024 SCC OnLine SC 2250] 8. J. Sekar alias Sekar Reddy vs. Directorate of Enforcement - [2022 SCC OnLine SC 561] ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Ashish Chauhan vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) Anr. - [2023 SCC OnLine Del 399] 25. Johnson Jacob vs. State - [2022 SCC OnLine Del 1864] 26. Department of Customs vs. Arvind Kumar - [2017 SCC OnLine Del 6587] 27. Chhatradhri Ram vs. State of Bihar & Anr. - [2025 SCC OnLine Pat 33] 28. Prof. (Dr.) Pusparaj Dash vs. State of Odisha & Anr. - [2023 SCC OnLine Ori 646] 29. Dr. Minaketan Pani vs. State of Orissa - [2022 SCC OnLine Ori 3304] 30. Mr. A. L. Jayaramu vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. - [Writ Petition No. 19700/2018 (GM - RES)] 31. Vadde Janardhan vs. Vadde Satyanarayana & Anr. - [Criminal Revision Case No. 2068 of 2015] 32. M/s. Deccan Tobacco Processors Limited & ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ther v/s. Meenakshi Marwah and Another, (2005) 4 SCC 370: 2005 SCC (Cri) 1101 6. State of Rajasthan v/s. B.K. Meena and Others, (1996) 6 SCC 417: 1996 SCC (L&S) 1455 7. State (NCT of Delhi) v/s. Ajay Kumar Tyagi, (2012) 9 SCC 685 8. Puneet Sabharwal and Another v/s. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2024 SCC Online SC 324 9. Rajendra Kumar Gautam v/s. State of M.P, (L.L.R. 2022 M.P. 603 (DB)) 10. J. Rajesh Kumar v/s. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2021 SCC Online Ker 3870: (2022) Cri LJ (NOC 144) 48 11. Sarwan Singh v/s. State of Jammu & Kashmir, 2020 SCC Online J&K 736 12. S. Karunakaran v/s. State of Madras 2018, SCC Online Mad 8051 13. Guru Narayan Mishra v/s. Centr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n Act. This FIR is quashed by the Gujarat High Court on various ground and one of the grounds was that though offence was of the year 2010, till passing of the order in the year 2018, charge-sheet was not filed against the applicants. It is contention of the applicants that allegations in FIR lodged with Valsad Police Station and in present FIR are same. In my view, the allegations are on different footing. Moreover, one of the ground for quashing the said FIR was chargesheet was not filed. It is contention of learned senior counsel for the applicants that the applicants have been exonerated from the allegations of evasion of excise duty by the Commissioner of Excise. It appears from record that two notices dated 16th February 2010 and 22nd....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arned SPP that the respondent CBI was not a party before the adjudicating authority or appellate authority. Whereas, it is contention of learned senior counsel for the applicants that in the notices, the allegations against the applicants were about evasion of excise duty and VAT and they have been exonerated from the said allegations. Hence, the prosecution cannot subject them to trial for the same allegations. 9. In my view, in the departmental proceedings, the scope of adjudication was in respect of validity of notices issued to the applicants in respect of evasion of excise and VAT. However, in the criminal case, the CBI, after investigation, has collected evidence in respect of conspiracy, forgery and cheating. There are allegations....