TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 1631X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... el for the petitioner, even on the initial date, had argued that provisions of the VAT Act and the Indian Penal Code cannot be invoked simultaneously, in respect of the same offence and since the VAT Act had already been invoked and a penalty imposed on the petitioner, which was subject matter of challenge before the Appellate Authority, there was no question of any criminal liability arising on the petitioner, in respect of any offence under the Indian Penal Code. 5. When the Court was not inclined, at that stage also, to agree with the submission with regard to non-maintainability of the proceedings under the code, it had been argued by Mr. Sharma that even taking it that both proceedings could run simultaneously, the documents which were required, had already been seized from the petitioner and were available with the VAT authorities, as well as with the investigating agency, i.e. Police, and as such, there was no cause for custodial interrogation. 6. On that argument, interim anticipatory bail had been granted to the petitioner, vide order dated 05.09.2013 and had been continued from time to time, in view of the submissions made by either side, till the matter was finally ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been argued as an issue by Mr. Sharma, to contend that when the FIR itself is not maintainable, then obviously anticipatory bail must be granted in any case, in respect of offences made out in that FIR, hence that issue (of maintainability of criminal proceedings), needs to be dealt with first. 10. Mr. Sharma has relied upon the following judgments of coordinate benches of this Court, to make good his contention, that since the issue primarily relates to the Punjab VAT Act, 2005, which is a special Act, which deals with the evasion of tax, therefore, the provisions of the Indian Penal Code cannot be attracted. i. CRM-M No.26178 of 2013, Samandeep Singh vs. State of Punjab, decided on 2.11.2010. ii. CRM-M No.35811 of 2010, Ashok Sidana vs. State of Punjab another, decided on 23.08.2011. iii. CRM-M No.24853 of 2012 (O M), Ishwar Singh @ Billa vs. State of Punjab another, decided on 30.04.2013. iv. CRM-M No.26116 of 2010, Pritpal Singh vs. State of Punjab another, decided on 05.03.2012. v. CRM-M No.21279 of 2012 (O M), Pawan Kumar Sharma Ors. vs. State of Punjab decided on 28.09.2012. 11. I am not inclined to agree with Mr. Sharma in any manner, on this i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to those persons. Therefore, obviously, in the present case, the provisions of the IPC, with regard to forgery and fabrication of documents, and cheating, are, prima facie, made out. Whether or not any particular provision which has been mentioned in the FIR is sustainable or not, obviously, would be seen by the investigating agency and, if it comes to that, by the trial Court, subsequently. Hence, in view of the specific situation here, where the documents have been verified and found to be false, I see absolutely no commonality between the present case and the one which has been relied upon by Mr. Sharma, in respect of the above contention. 14. Secondly, the issue itself, that just because a particular statute governs a particular issue and therefore, proceedings cannot be initiated for violation of any other statute, also does not hold good in my opinion, as what the Punjab VAT Act deals with, is only evasion of tax and the penalties etc. that are to be levied, in case such evasion is proved. However, the fabrication of the documents itself being an offence punishable under the provisions of the IPC, in my opinion, there is no reason why, for the commission of such offence al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection (1) of Sections 24A and 26 of the Act can be punished only under the Act even though his act also amounts to one or more offence(s) defined under the Indian Penal Code and that too on a complaint made in accordance with Section 28, then the provisions of Chapter 7 will become discriminatory and may have to be struck down on the ground of violation of Article 14. 24. Such an unintended consequence can be and deserves to be avoided in interpreting Sections 24A, 25 and 26 keeping in view the settled law that if there are two possible constructions of a statute, then the one which leads to anomaly or absurdity and makes the statute vulnerable to the attack of unconstitutionality should be avoided in preference to the other which makes it rational and immune from the charge of unconstitutionality. That apart, the Court cannot interpret the provisions of the Act in a manner which will deprive the victim of the offences defined in Sections 416, 463, 464, 468 and 471 of his right to prosecute the wrong doer by filing the first information report or complaint under the relevant provisions of Criminal Procedure Code. 25. We may add that the respondent could have been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ois acquit . The plea of 'autrefois convict' or 'autrefois acquit' avers that the defendant has been previously convicted or acquitted on a charge for the same offence as that in respect of which he is arraigned.... The question for the jury on the issue is whether the defendant has previously been in jeopardy in respect of the charge on which he is arraigned, for the rule of law is that a person must not be put in peril twice for the same offence. The test is whether the former offence and the offence now charged have the same ingredients in the sense that the facts constituting the one are sufficient to justify a conviction of the other, not that the facts relied on by the Crown are the same in the two trials. A plea of 'autrefois acquit' is not proved unless it is shown that the verdict of acquittal of the previous charge necessarily involves an acquittal of the latter. (Vide Halsbury's Laws of England, Hailsham Edition, Vol. 9, pp. 152 and 153, para 212). 9. This principle found recognition in Section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, - '26. provisions as to offences punishable under two or more enactments.- 'Where an act o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rial or conviction of the offender under both enactments but there is only a bar to the punishment of the offender twice for the same offence. In other words, the section provides that where an act or omission constitutes an offence under two enactments, the offender may be prosecuted and punished under either or both the enactments but shall not be liable to be punished twice for the same offence. We accordingly reject the argument of the appellant on this aspect of the case. 34. In State of Rajasthan v. Hat Singh, the Court considered the question whether the High Court was right in taking the view that the respondent could have been prosecuted either under Section 5 or Section 6(3) of the Rajasthan Sati (Prevention) Act, 1987 and not under both the sections. The High Court had ruled in favour of the respondent. This Court reversed the judgment of the High Court, referred to Article 20(2) of the Constitution, the judgments in Maqbool Hussain v. The State of Bombay (supra), State of Bombay v. S.L. Apte (supra) and observed : (Hat Singh case, SCC P.158, Para 9) 9. The rule against double jeopardy is stated in the maxim nemo debet bis vexari pro una et ea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r that offence. Furthermore, that would be not punishment by a judicial tribunal, as per the ratio of the law laid down in Maqbool Hassans' case (paras 17-18 thereof), cited in Vimal Kumar Suranas' case (supra). 17. Now coming to whether, even having held that simultaneous proceedings are maintainable, under the provisions of the Punjab VAT Act and the Indian Penal Code, in the particular circumstances of the case, is the petitioner entitled to continuity of the concession of anticipatory bail granted to him or not? 18. Mr. Vennet Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that the documents already having been seized by the VAT authorities and being easily available with the investigating agency, i.e. the Police, there is no cause for custodial interrogation and, as such, subject to his continuing to join investigation and cooperating in the investigation and complying with other conditions under Section 438(ii) Cr.P.C., there is no reason for not making the interim order absolute. Learned State Counsel, on the other hand, has argued that, whereas, there is no doubt that the documents which are alleged to have been fabricated and forged and have been foun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
