Research › Browse › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

1995 DIGILAW 731 (RAJ)

Ramjilal Baisiwala v. State of Rajasthan

1995-08-14

N.C.KOCHHAR

body1995
Honble KOCHHAR, J. –The brief facts giving rise to this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code) are as under :– (2). On 13.9.1985, a complaint under Section 277 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was filed by the Income Tax Officer, Company Circle 1, Jaipur against M/s Baiton Cables Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur (the company) besides against the three petitioners : Ramjilal Baisiwala, Ajay Kumar Baisiwala and Santosh Kumar Baisiwala describing them as the Managing Directors of the company with the allegations that on 30.6.1971 the income tax return for the assessment year 1971-72 was filed by the company, but in the said return the income of Rs. 42820/- had been concealed by the company and trading addition of Rs. 1,05,250/- was to be added to the income tax of the said company and it was alleged that the company and the three petitioners had committed offence punishable under section 277 of the Act and it was prayed that the accused persons be punished in accordance with law. The learned trial Court took cognizance of the offence against the accused petitioners on 13.9.1985 itself and directed for issuing of warrants against the accused petitioners for 28.9.1985. No warrants were, however, issued by the office and warrants were ordered to be issued for 15.10.1985 which also were not issued by the office. The petitioners No.1 and 2- Ramjilal Baisiwala and Ajay Kumar Baisiwala appeared before the court on 31.10. 1985 and submitted their bail bonds and the case was adjourned to 5.11.1985. On 5.11.1985, petitioner No.3-Santosh Kumar Baisiwala appeared and submitted his bail bonds and on 15.11.1985 copies of the complaint were given to the petitioners and the case was adjourned to 28.11.1985 when copies of the documents were to be supplied to the peti- tioners and it was directed that the witnesses be summoned for 17.12.1985. The complainant, however, did not supply the copies and the matter was adjourned to 13.2.1986 when the court directed that the department should be approached first for the copies and on 3.4.1986 Shri KK Kanwat, through whom the complaint was filed, was examined as a witness and no other witness was present. On 27.5.1986, an application for summoning the documents was made by the petitioners and the complainant sought time for reply and in spite of taking many opportunities the documents were not produced by the complainant. On 27.5.1986, an application for summoning the documents was made by the petitioners and the complainant sought time for reply and in spite of taking many opportunities the documents were not produced by the complainant. No witness has been examined even in the pre-charge evidence besides Shri K.K. Kanwat abovesaid. Since the matter pertained to the year 1971-72 and the case had been prolonged for no fault of the petitioners, they have approached this court by filing this petition. (3). It has not been in dispute that the record of the petitioners has been with the Income Tax Department, who had conducted a raid and had initiated proceedings under section 143 of the Act, but, in spite thereof, the documents had not been produced before the learned trial court. In the list of witnesses the names of Serva Shri Jogendra Singh, the IAC (Income-tax Appellate Commissioner) and Shri R R Goswami, Income-tax Officer had been mentioned as the witnesses to be examined by the complainant. Shri K.K. Kanwat was only a formal witness. Neither of the two witnesses have been examined so far and the only contention raised at the Bar is that Jogendra Singh has retired, but when questioned by this court about the date of his retirement, no answer could be given to it. No explanation is coming forward as to why Shri R R Goswami was not examined and why the documents were not produced. In fact the learned counsel for the Department does not even have the file with him and no reason is coming forward as to why the file could not be procured when the case was listed in court. It is unfortunate that the Government agencies not only do not care for the rights of the persons who may be prosecuted and who can only be prosecuted, but proceeds in a way that they feel they are being persecuted instead of being prosecuted, but even no assistance is given to the court either by not being ready with the file or by not getting the file concerned from the Department. The case shows that utter disregard has been shown by the complainant to the process of the court and the rights of the petition- ers for an early trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The case shows that utter disregard has been shown by the complainant to the process of the court and the rights of the petition- ers for an early trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It has been held by the Apex Court that every accused has a right of early trial and I feel that this is one of the cases in which matter has been delayed and I am of the view that instead of prosecuting the petitioners the complainant-department has been persecuting them and if, the proceedings are not quashed, it will result into great injustice to the petitioners, who are being prosecuted in relation to the incident/return for the year 1971-72 and the Department-complainant is abusing the process of the court. (4). Consequently, while allowing the petition, I quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioners under Section 277 of the Act by virtue of an application dated 13.9.1985 filed by K.K. Kanwat, Income Tax Officer, Company Circle 1, Jaipur and pending in the court of Special Magistrate (Economic Offences), Jaipur, vide Case No. 82/85 (150/86). The petition stands disposed of accordingly.