TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 1400X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ist of witnesses and relevant documents. Under the Act of 2017, power of inspection, search and seizure is prescribed under Section 67; Section 68 deals with power of inspection of goods in movement; Section 69 relates to power of arrest; Section 70 prescribes the power to summon persons to give evidence and produce documents and Section 71 deals with the power to access to business premises. As regards the contention of the appellants that the complaint filed by the GST authority is not after completion of investigation in view of the complaint, the said argument is not acceptable for the reason that the offence allegedly committed by the appellants is an economic offence; if on further investigation any new relevant fact or document comes within the knowledge of the investigating officer, he can file the supplementary report - So far as the appellants are concerned, the material collected against them during investigation as filed with the complaint are sufficient for establishing a prima facie case against them under Section 132(1)(b) (c) of the Act of 2017 and therefore, on filing of such complaint, the Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence against them. This C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g activities even when their statutory returns did not indicate purchase of any such goods for trade. On the basis of information gathered, the appellants No.1 2 were arrested for the offence under Section 132(1)(b) (c) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (in short the Act of 2017 ) on 25.1.2021 from Raipur and produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur on the same day whereas appellants No. 3 4 were arrested for commission of the said offence from Siwan, Bihar on 25.1.2021 and produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siwan, who granted transit remand upto Raipur and accordingly, they were produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur on 28.1.2021. 03. The appellants/writ petitioners filed an application under Section 167(2) of CrPC for granting them default bail as despite lapse of 60 days from the date of their judicial custody, no charge sheet was filed by the respondent/GST authority against them. The said application was rejected by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur vide order dated 12.5.2021, which was subsequently affirmed by the revisional Court vide order dated 26.6.2021 and the writ petition filed against the said order wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... default bail or statutory bail if the accused is prepared to furnish bail in case the charge sheet being not filed in the Court within 90 days of custody in cases punishable with death, life imprisonment, and imprisonment not less than 10 years, and after 60 days of custody for any other offence. Section 167 (2) of CrPC reads as under: 167. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty-four hours. - (1) xxx xxx xxx (2) The Magistrate to whom an accused person is forwarded under this section may, whether he has or has not jurisdiction to try the case, from time to time, authorise the detention of the accused in such custody as such Magistrate thinks fit, for a term not exceeding fifteen days in the whole; and if he has no jurisdiction to try the case or commit it for trial, and considers further detention unnecessary, he may order the accused to be forwarded to a Magistrate having such jurisdiction: Provided that - (a) the Magistrate may authorise the detention of the accused person, otherwise than in the custody of the police, beyond the period of fifteen days, if he is satisfied that adequate grounds exist for doing so, but no Magistrate shall authorise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irst Class, shall try any such offence. 12. True it is that in this case, there is no FIR lodged by the GST authority and the Magistrate has not taken cognizance of the offence on his own but the cognizance has been taken on the complaint filed by the GST authority/respondent No.2 along with the list of witnesses and relevant documents. Under the Act of 2017, power of inspection, search and seizure is prescribed under Section 67; Section 68 deals with power of inspection of goods in movement; Section 69 relates to power of arrest; Section 70 prescribes the power to summon persons to give evidence and produce documents and Section 71 deals with the power to access to business premises. Likewise, Sections 100 to 110A under Chapter-XIII of the Customs Act, 1962 also prescribe the power to search, arrest, inspection, examination of persons, recording of evidence, penalty for failure to furnish information return, etc. Similarly, Sections 35 to 40 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 also deal with power to arrest, stop and search conveyances; search premises; seize documents, etc; power to examine persons and summon persons to give evidence and produce documents. 13. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . So far as the appellants are concerned, the material collected against them during investigation as filed with the complaint are sufficient for establishing a prima facie case against them under Section 132(1)(b) (c) of the Act of 2017 and therefore, on filing of such complaint, the Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence against them. 16. Thus, considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, and keeping in view the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Deepak Mahajan (supra), this Court is of the opinion that though the complaint filed by respondent No.2 cannot be said to have been filed under Section 173 of CrPC but for the purpose of default bail, it can be said that respondent No.2, who is an authorized officer under the Act of 2017 to carry out investigation/enqiury, filed the complaint within the prescribed time limit which satisfies the requirement under Section 167 of CrPC and as such, no right accrues to the appellants to seek default bail under Section 167(2) of CrPC. 17. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the writ appeal being without ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
