TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 727X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Additional Sessions Judge had passed impugned order which is legal and proper and it does not warrant any interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction more particularly when it is noticed that by one way or the other, the applicant is prolonging the time with calculative move just not to pay the amount which had prima facie appears to have been pocketed. It is also to be noted that the interim order passed by this Court dated 26.10.2015 in this Criminal Revision Application No.566 of 2014 has also not been complied with. Under the circumstances, no leniency can be shown to such an applicant who only desires to prolong the issue. Hence, this revision application deserves to be dismissed. - Decided against the applicant. - CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 566 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 15-7-2016 - MR. G.B.SHAH, J. FOR THE APPLICANT : MR UMESH A TRIVEDI, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT : MR HRIDAY BUCH, ADVOCATE, MR KL PANDYA, APP CAV JUDGMENT 1. Rule. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Mr. K. L. Pandya for the respondent No.1 and learned advocate, Mr. Hriday Buch for the respondent No.2 waive service of notice of rule. 2. This Criminal Revision Application has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 2(b) had expired. The applicant also preferred another application before the Sessions Court being Criminal Misc. Application No.635 of 2014 to modify condition 2(c) of the order qua deposit of 10% of outstanding amount every month, which was pending for disposal at the time of filing of the present application. As the applicant failed to comply with the conditions of paying the outstanding amount as per the order dated 28/2/2014 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.338 of 2014 by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara, the present respondent No.2-original complainant filed an application being Criminal Misc. Application No.875 of 2014 for cancellation of bail before the Sessions Court. Upon hearing the learned advocates appearing for the parties, said application was allowed vide order dated 11/9/2014 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Vadodara, whereby the bail granted to the present applicant was cancelled, which is giving rise to the present Criminal Revision Application. 4. Heard Mr. Umesh A. Trivedi, learned advocate for the applicant, Mr. K.L. Pandya, learned APP for the respondent No.1 and Mr. Hriday Buch, learned advocate for the respondent No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd also not to leave the State of Gujarat without prior permission of the trial court. He further submitted that although the applicant deposited ₹ 20,00,000/- to get him released on bail, he did not comply with the condition of depositing further payment of ₹ 54,00,000/- by 5/5/2014 and ₹ 18,00,000/- by 5th of each month starting from June, 2014 and to frustrate the conditions of bail, he filed Criminal Misc. Application No.641 of 2014 which was partly allowed permitting the applicant to go out of Gujarat to make payment and to comply with the conditions but, as the applicant did not deposit 30% of the total outstanding amount, Criminal Misc. Application No.851 of 2014 was filed by the respondent No.2 for cancellation of bail which was allowed by the impugned order. It was pointed out by Mr.Buch that the applicant had filed Criminal Misc. Application No.6662 of 2014 for modification of condition 2(b) of the order dated 28/2/2014 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.338 of 2014 and to grant further time of two months in paying 30% of the outstanding amount. Therein, he also sought interim relief restraining the respondent No.2 from taking any coercive action ag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o be cognizable and punishment has been enhanced from three years to seven years and made the offence non-bailable. Thus, on and from 10.5.2013 if a person has collected any amount as service tax but failed to pay the amount so collected to the Central Government and if it exceeds ₹ 50.00 lakhs, then only the accused will be liable for punishment upto seven years. Drawing attention of this Court to the break-up of service tax liability shown by the Department for the period 2013-2014 till 31.12.2014, service tax liability even assessed by the Department was ₹ 30,32,939/- only and thus, no provision under section 89(1)(d)(ii) of the Act could have been resorted to by the authority. He then submitted that thus when it does not fall within that provision automatically, an offence becomes bailable and punishment would be upto one year only, even if the accused is alleged to have committed such offence. He then submitted that strict interpretation of the Statute itself makes the offence alleged against the applicant to be bailable and therefore, even if the advocate on behalf of the applicant-accused had made any concession of even depositing the entire dues, it is ignorance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unds referred above are beyond the scope of the subject proceedings and not capable of being considered while deciding the present application. It is important to note that if at all initial partial payment had been made to come out of jail, it cannot be said to be compliance of bail conditions by the applicant and thus, learned Additional Sessions Judge had passed impugned order which is legal and proper and it does not warrant any interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction more particularly when it is noticed that by one way or the other, the applicant is prolonging the time with calculative move just not to pay the amount which had prima facie appears to have been pocketed. It is also to be noted that the interim order passed by this Court dated 26.10.2015 in this Criminal Revision Application No.566 of 2014 has also not been complied with. Under the circumstances, no leniency can be shown to such an applicant who only desires to prolong the issue. Hence, this revision application deserves to be dismissed. 8.2 This revision application is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged. (G.B.SHAH, J.) FURTHER ORDER After pronouncement of the aforesaid judgmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
