TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 960X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed on the basis of false donation certificate received by him and when he was asked to prove the genuineness of the said certificate during the assessment procedure, then only the petitioner agreed to forgo such exemption. Thus, the petitioner has to prove his innocence by facing trial. The contention of the petitioner that there is no mens rea is also triable issue in view of the facts stated. It is apt to refer to the decision rendered in Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar v. The State of Maharashtra [ 2019 (2) TMI 1894 - SUPREME COURT ] wherein the Apex Court has categorically held that quashing criminal proceedings was called for only in a case where complaint did not disclose any offence, or was frivolous, vexatious, or oppressive. If alle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... riminal Petition is liable to be dismissed. - CRIMINAL PETITION No.722 OF 2021 - - - Dated:- 5-7-2021 - HON BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN Petitioner Advocate : Pillix Law Firm Respondent Advocate : Public Prosecutor TG ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C. ) to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.8140 of 2020 pending on the file of XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad. The petitioner herein is Accused No.11 in the said case. The offences alleged against the petitioner herein are under Sections 409, 420, 464, 465, 466, 468 and 471 read with 120-B of IPC. 2. Heard Sri A. Ramesh, learned senior counsel, representing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a, former Vice President of SAARC Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Former President of Southern India Chamber of Commerce and Industry. The petitioner has held many business delegations sponsored by Ministry of commerce and Ministry of External Affairs. Thus the petitioner is having his own reputation in the society. Therefore, he has not committed any offences as alleged by the 2nd respondent. He has believed A.2 and made donations. There is no mens rea in giving donations to A.2 and the petitioner never claimed any exemption illegally on the said donations. He would further submit that the 2nd respondent has not made the said company i.e. Mohan Mutha Exports Private Limited, to which the petitioner herein is the Managing Director as accu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... herein is also specifically mentioned in the charge sheet. The petitioner herein has addressed a letter dated 18.11.2019 to the 2nd respondent informing that he is withdrawing the said donations and submitting fresh returns. The said facts would reveal that the petitioner herein has admitted his guilt and also commission of offence and therefore he has submitted fresh returns. There are several triable issues and the petitioner herein has to face trial and prove his innocence. There are specific allegations against the petitioner herein. Therefore, the said defence of vicarious liability has to be taken by the petitioner herein during the course of trial in the said Calendar Case. Instead of doing so, he has filed the present Criminal Petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hed criminal conspiracy to evade taxes. In the present case, the tax advantage derived is around ₹ 22.43 Crores. The Government is deprived of to the said extent. The petitioner herein has claimed said exemption by producing false certificate. The petitioner herein has not voluntarily withdrawn bogus claim of deduction under Section 35(i)(ii) of the I.T.Act,1961. It was only during assessment proceedings when the petitioner was asked to prove genuineness of the donation to A.2-the RDS, he came forward to withdraw of bogus claim with deduction. The same was after departmental action of the beneficiaries and principal conspirator including the petitioner herein. There is a specific allegation that the action of the petitioner is well pl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which cognizance had been taken by Magistrate, it was open to High Court to quash same. It was not necessary that, a meticulous analysis of case should be done before trial to find out whether case would end in conviction or acquittal. If it appeared on a reading of complaint and consideration of allegations therein, in light of the statement made on oath that the ingredients of the offence are disclosed, there would be no justification for High Court to interfere. The defences that might be available, or facts/aspects which when established during trial, might lead to acquittal, were not grounds for quashing complaint at threshold. At that stage, only question relevant was whether averments in complaint spell out ingredients of a criminal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
