JUDGMENT - F.I. REBELLO, J.:--Rule. Respondents waive service. Heard forthwith. 2. The applicants in this application have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 as also Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The application can be heard under the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Article section 482 of Cr.P.C. and consequently the question of exercising the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court does not arise looking at the nature of the relief. 3. It is the case of the applicants that Applicant No. 1 is a Public Limited Company which has been declared a Relief Undertaking under the Bombay Relief Undertakings (Special Provisions) Act, 1958 by the State of Gujarat. It is also a Sick Undertaking within the meaning of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 as proceedings have been registered under Reference No. 185/98 on 10th July, 1998. 4. The applicants on 24th September, 1998 received a letter addressed by the Sales Tax Officer calling on the applicants to pay the sales tax dues, In the said letter it is pointed out that the applicants had collected sales tax separately by Sales Invoices as an agent of the Government, but they have not paid the same into the Government Treasury and that amounts to breach of trust. Therefore, inviting provisions of section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicants were also informed to produce Stay order from prosecution under section 406 failing which, action will be taken against the applicants. It is on account of the threatened action by that letter that the present petition has been filed. 5. At the hearing of the petition the learned Counsel on behalf of the applicants contends that once the proceedings are registered by virtue of the provisions of section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 no proceedings can be initiated against the company. Section 22 has been relied upon for the said purpose. The relevant part of section 22 is sub-section (1) which reads as under :--- "22. Section 22 has been relied upon for the said purpose. The relevant part of section 22 is sub-section (1) which reads as under :--- "22. Suspension of legal proceedings, contracts, etc.---(1) Where in respect of an industrial company, an inquiry under section 16 is pending or any scheme referred to under section 17 is under preparation or consideration or a sanctioned scheme is under implementation or where an appeal under section 25 relating to an industrial company is pending, then, notwithstanding anything contained in the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) or any other law or the memorandum and articles of association of the industrial company or any other instrument having effect under the said Act or other law, no proceedings for the winding-up of the industrial company or for execution, distress or the like against any of the properties of the industrial company or for the appointment of a Receiver in respect thereof and no suit for the recovery of money or for the enforcement of any security against the industrial company or of any guarantee in respect of any loan, or advance granted to the industrial company shall lie or be proceeded with further, except with the consent of the Board or, as the case may be, the Appellate Authority." Learned Counsel also relied on a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of (Data Davy Ltd. v. State of Orissa and others)1, A.I.R. 1998 S.C. 2928. On the other hand on behalf of the respondents it is contended that provisions of section 22 will not stand in the way of criminal prosecution under section 406 of I.P.C. and consequently the application ought to be dismissed. 6. On the other hand on behalf of the respondents it is contended that provisions of section 22 will not stand in the way of criminal prosecution under section 406 of I.P.C. and consequently the application ought to be dismissed. 6. Section 22 of the SICA sets out that in respect of an Industrial Company if an inquiry under section 16 is pending or any scheme referred to under section 17 is under preparation or consideration or a sanctioned scheme under the implementation or where an appeal under section 23 is pending then notwithstanding anything contained in the Companies Act or any other law, etc., no proceedings for the winding up of the Industrial Company or for execution, distress or the like against any of the properties of industrial company or for the appointment of a Receiver in respect thereof and no suit for the recovery of money or for enforcement of the security against the Industrial Company or of any guarantee in respect of any loans or advances granted to the Industrial Company shall lie or be proceeded with further except with the consent of the Board or as the case may be the Appellate Authority. It is, therefore, clear that there is no bar on proceedings as contemplated by that sub-section. The only bar is that no proceedings shall lie or be proceeded with further except with the consent of the Board or the Appellate Authority as the case may. Therefore, filing of proceedings or continuance thereof can only be with the consent of the Board or Appellate Authority. Further it is only those proceedings like winding up or for execution, distress or like which cannot be initiated without the permission of the Board or the Appellate Authority. In the light of that it will have to be examined whether the proceedings under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code are barred from being initiated without the consent of the Board or as the case may be the Appellate Authority. 7. Let us then examine whether the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Tata Davy Ltd. (supra) is applicable and concludes the matter. In that case sales tax was sought to be recovered in exercise of the powers conferred under section 13-A of the said Act (Sales Tax Act). These were proceedings in the nature of execution or distress. In that case sales tax was sought to be recovered in exercise of the powers conferred under section 13-A of the said Act (Sales Tax Act). These were proceedings in the nature of execution or distress. It is in that light of the matter that the Apex Court held where recovery of Sales Tax is sought to be made from Sick Company it cannot be proceeded with, without the permission of the Board and/or Appellate Authority as the case may be. This judgment, therefore, is of no assistance to the issue involved in the present case. 8. The Apex Court in the case of Tata Davy Ltd. (supra) had relied on the case of (Deputy Commercial Tax Officer and others v. Corromandal Pharmaceuticals and others)2, A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 2027 and distinguished that judgment in so far as the issue arising in Tata Davy Ltd. (supra) . In the case of Deputy Commercial Tax Officer others (supra) the issue was whether after sanctioned scheme had come into force if the Company had collected sales tax dues whether the said amount should be recovered. The Apex Court held that the embargo of section 22(1) can apply to such of those dues reckoned or included in sanctioned scheme and amounts like sales tax, etc., that the sick industrial company is enabled to collect after the date of sanctioned scheme legitimately belonging to the Revenue, cannot be and could not have been intended to be recovered within section 22 of the Act. Considering the ratio of that judgment what is clear is that in some situations sales tax cannot be recovered as held by the Apex Court in Deputy Commercial Tax Officer (supra). However, before the Apex Court in the case of Tata Davy Ltd. (supra) A.I.R. 1998 S.C. 2928 there was no scheme, but what was under consideration was the recovery of the sales tax by way of execution under section 13-A of SICA. It is in that context that the law has been declared by the Apex Court. This judgment is also of no assistance in deciding the issue that has arisen here. Proceedings under section 406 are not proceedings for recovery of sales tax. Proceedings under section 406 are proceedings of a criminal nature where a party is being prosecuted for the offence against the State. This judgment is also of no assistance in deciding the issue that has arisen here. Proceedings under section 406 are not proceedings for recovery of sales tax. Proceedings under section 406 are proceedings of a criminal nature where a party is being prosecuted for the offence against the State. Penal provisions like this cannot be said to be proceedings which would fall under the expression execution, distress or the like. What section 22 contemplates is proceedings of a civil nature or proceedings where recovery can be made by way of execution, distress or the like. It is, therefore, clear that where proceedings are not for recovery but are for violation of the provisions of law which would constitute an offence under the Indian Penal Code such proceedings are not covered by section 22. In the light of that 1 find no merits in this application. 9. Learned Counsel for the applicants, therefore, contends that in the event criminal proceedings are initiated the Magistrate should be directed to enlarge the applicants on bail. Such a relief cannot be given in these proceedings. Suffice it to say that in the event the respondents proceed to file criminal proceedings against the applicants and seek their arrest they shall give them 48 hours notice to the applicants to enable them to take appropriate proceedings including application for bail. 10. In the light of that Rule discharged. In the circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs. Rule discharged. *****