9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 1640X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es punishable under Sections 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the P.C. Act") and Sections 120B and 420 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC"). 3. The Appellant is the Chairman and Managing Director of M/s MSPL Limited. In 2010, MSPL Limited imported an Aston Martin Rapide car for which the Company paid the applicable customs duty. The Company also paid road tax to the Regional Transport Office (RTO), Hosapete. 4. One Jagadish B.N., Advocate filed a private complaint in the Court of XXIII Additional City Civil Sessions Judge, Bangalore City and Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, Bangalore Urban District, Bangalore City alleging that there was collusion and conspiracy between RTOs in Karnataka as a result of which appropriate road tax was not being collected. It was alleged that cars were being imported in Karnataka for which RTO was not charging road tax as per the actual cost. 5. By an order dated 7th August 2012, the Court of XXIII Additional City Civil & Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act Bengaluru passed an order referring the complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Lokayuktha, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Complaint further claims that not less than 500 cars entered in Karnataka and for name sake 4 to 5 car were mentioned as Bentley and remaining cars have been registered by suppressing the brand name and more than 98% have been registered on the basis of invoice and not on the basis of cash bill. ... 11. The complainant further claims that the manufacturing rate of Bentley car is 1.16 crores for basic model and car which have entered Bangalore range from basic model to top end. The selling rate at the factory ord is 86,000 pounds i.e. Rs. 1,16,00,000/- and on road the value of Bentley car would go beyond Rs. 3 crores for a car and if formalities are properly complied with. The complainant further claims that top end model would range up more the Rs. 6 crores. 12. The complainant also claims that the racket is done with extraordinary brilliance and intelligence and it is abetting come and also influencing the public servant in getting their car registered and unless proper investigation agency conducted fair, equal and comprehensive investigation, the fraud cannot be unearthed...... 13. The complainant further claims that the majority of the dealers who hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent of police, lokayukta Bangalore urban by constitute a team of four Dy. SP and entrust the matter to them to investigation and to report. Hence I proceed to pass the following ORDER The complaint is referred to superintendent of Police, Lokayukta, Bangalore Urban under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. with a direction to constitute a team of four Dy. S.P. for investigating the matter and to report. " 7. The Appellant is neither a vehicle dealer nor a middle man nor a smuggler. He is not even the owner of the vehicle in question but only the Chairman/Managing Director of M/s MSPL Limited, the Company which has imported the vehicle, and got the same registered. Neither the Appellant nor the Company of which the Appellant is the Managing Director has abandoned any vehicle. 8. On 27th February 2013, the RTO, Hosapete issued a demand notice to M/s MSPL Limited demanding differential motor vehicle tax of Rs. 20,44,468/- in respect of the vehicle in question. M/s MSPL Limited immediately complied with the demand and paid the demanded sum of Rs. 20,44,468/- in full on 20th March 2013, after which the RTO, Hosapete issued a "No Dues Certificate" to M/s MSPL Limited. 9. On 2nd N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch owner or person". 16. In the said petition, the Appellant pointed out that short collection in road tax, if any, could be collected from the owner of the vehicle, under Section 8A of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957. On receipt of demand notice, M/s MSPL Limited, the owner of the vehicle in question, had paid the differential tax. M/s MSPL Limited had deposited the entire road tax in full. 17. By an interim order dated 14th February 2017, the Dharwad Bench of the High Court of Karnataka was pleased to stay the criminal proceedings against the Appellant. The interim order was extended from time to time. 18. By the judgment and order dated 22nd October 2021 impugned in this Court, the High Court dismissed the Criminal Revisional Petition being CRL.P. No. 100167 of 2017. 19. It is the case of the Appellant that on 19th December 2019, the Bengaluru Bench of the High Court of Karnataka allowed a Writ Petition/Criminal Revisional Petition filed by one S.V. Nandaraju and others being Writ Petition No. 41103/2016 (GM-RES) and quashed proceedings initiated against petitioners in the aforesaid case, S.V. Nandaraju, which arose from the same chargesheet as in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... do vehicle, which was registered on 3rd November 2007. Pursuant to the private complaint filed by the Respondent No. 2, FIR was registered and chargesheet was filed on 28th November 2016. In the meanwhile, on 28th July 2010, a notice was issued demanding a sum of Rs. 2,83,480/-. At the time of hearing, the petitioner in Criminal Petition No. 344 of 2017 produced a receipt acknowledging payment of the aforesaid amount. Taking note of the fact that there was no material annexed to the chargesheet against the petitioner, S. Rajendran, in Criminal Petition No. 3087 of 2018, and that payment of differential tax had been made before filing of the private complaint, the petition was allowed. 22. In the case of the K.J. Kuruvilla (supra), the petitioner had purchased a Range Rover which was registered on 30th March 2007. At the time of Registration, the petitioner was called upon to pay Rs. 9,99,628/- towards Life Time Tax. Later the vehicle was sold on 11th March 2011. Thereafter, the petitioner was called upon to pay differential tax of Rs. 19,045/- which was paid. Relying on S. Rajendran (supra), Criminal proceedings against K.J. Kuruvilla were also quashe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned Magistrate was not justified in issuing process against accused nos. 1 to 8 for the offences punishable under Sections 427, 447, 506 and 120B read with Section 34 IPC. 26. As observed by this Court in the case of Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749 and even thereafter in catena of decisions, summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal Law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. In paragraph 28 in Pepsi Foods Limited (supra), it is observed and held as under: "28. Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isputably must contain provision fixing such vicarious liabilities. Even for the said purpose, it is obligatory on the part of the complainant to make requisite allegations which would attract the provisions constituting vicarious liability." 28. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [(1992) Supp (1) SCC 335] this Court held:- "102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h the submission of the appellants that the whole attempt of the complainant is evidently to rope in all the members of the family particularly those who are the parents of the Managing Director of Ganga Automobiles Ltd. in the instant criminal case without regard to their role or participation in the alleged offences with the sole purpose of getting the loan due to the Finance Company by browbeating and tyrannising the appellants with criminal prosecution. A criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is already pending against the appellants and other accused. They would suffer the consequences if offence under Section 138 is proved against them. In any case there is no occasion for the complainant to prosecute the appellants under Sections 406/420 IPC and in his doing so it is clearly an abuse of the process of law and prosecution against the appellants for those offences is liable to be quashed, which we do." 31. In Joseph Salvaraj A. v. State of Gujarat and Others [(2011) 7 SCC 59], this Court held that even if chargesheet had been filed, Magistrate could still examine whether the offences alleged to have been committed by the accused were prima fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax of Rs. 20,44,468/- was collected from accused No. 2 only on 20.03.2013, whereas, the R.C. was issued on 10.01.2011 by collecting nominal tax of Rs. 21,98,801/- only. The allegation is of serious nature and these facts are not disputed. Under such circumstances, it cannot be concluded that the criminal proceeding was initiated against the accused Nos. 1 and 2 without any basis. The contention of the learned counsel for accused No. 1 that he was not knowing the value of the vehicle and he accepted the value as declared by accused No. 2 and therefore, he demanded lesser amount of tax, cannot be accepted at this stage. Similarly, the contention of the learned counsel for accused No. 2 that he was not knowing either the value of the vehicle or the tax and whatever tax demanded by accused No. 1 was paid by him and therefore, he was not committed any offence also cannot be accepted at this stage. When there is specific allegation made against various accused including the present petitioners, regarding evasion of tax systematically showing the value of the imported vehicles at a lesser value, the same cannot be ignored. Therefore, I am of the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h the judgments of the High Court cited by the Appellant, that is, the judgments/orders in the cases of S.V. Nandaraju (supra), S. Rajendran (supra) and K.J. Kuruvilla (supra). Mr. Padhi pointed out that in the cases of S. Rajendran (supra) and K.J. Kuruvilla (supra), where the High Court had quashed the criminal proceedings, the demand notice for deficit tax had been issued and the deficit tax had also been realized before the private complaint filed by the Respondent No. 2 was registered. 42. The mere fact that demand notice may have been issued and the differential tax realized before institution of the private complaint is in our view inconsequential. Either the charges disclose an offence of defrauding the State of revenue or the offence of defrauding the State of revenue not made out. The question is whether the materials on record disclose any criminal act on the part of these Appellants. The answer cannot but be in the negative. 43. The judgment dated 19th December, 2019 in the case of S.V. Nandaraju and others (supra) is distinguishable and has no application to the facts of this case. The accused were officers and/or employees of the Motor Vehicles Department, some ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
