Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1064 (PNJ)

N. K. Garg v. U. T. Chandigarh

2003-08-05

VIRENDER SINGH

body2003
ORDER Virender Singh, J. - N.K. Garg, the petitioner herein is a Chartered Accountant. He has been booked in a case FIR No. 50 dated 29.1.2003 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Central, Chandigarh. He has filed the present petition under section 439 Criminal Procedure Code praying for grant of bail. 2. The present case was registered on the complaint of one Shri P.K. Sidhu, Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Range-II, Chandigarh, alleging therein that the petitioner who is Chartered Accountant had been filing income tax returns of himself and his family members. He was also filing the returns on behalf of other business concerns as well who were his clients. It was noticed by the Incomes Tax department that the present petitioner had been claiming refund on the basis of T.D.S. certificate of the parties, who were mainly staying in Delhi and on a thorough investigation by the Income Tax authorities, it revealed that the present petitioner had been fabricating T.D.S. certificates which were filed with the income tax returns and on the basis of the said T.D.S. certificates the petitioner had also claimed the refund. In many cases it further revealed that the parties in whose name the refunds were issued were in fact operated by the petitioner himself and one of such concerns was M/s Robin Enterprises. The TAN, PAN and the address of this company quoted on the T.D.S. certificates were false and the party did not even exist. The matter was further investigated by the Income Tax authorities and it was found that the present petitioner was operating the bank accounts as a partner although he was not shown partner in the income tax returns. The TDS certificates were printed on the computer. The TDS payments were then got verified from the Income Tax Department, Delhi but no record was found of the companies having ever deducted and deposited the tax. The petitioner opened 74 accounts in different nine banks in the name of different firms. He, thus, by fabricating TDS certificates claimed refunds which runs into lacs of rupees. 3. I have heard Mr. R.S. Ghai, Senior Advocate learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R.K. Handa, learned Standing Counsel for U.T. Chandigarh. The Investigating Officer was also present in the Court with complete police file. 4. Mr. He, thus, by fabricating TDS certificates claimed refunds which runs into lacs of rupees. 3. I have heard Mr. R.S. Ghai, Senior Advocate learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R.K. Handa, learned Standing Counsel for U.T. Chandigarh. The Investigating Officer was also present in the Court with complete police file. 4. Mr. Ghai submits that the petitioner is in custody since February 2003 and all the offences for which the petitioner is being tried are triable by Magistrate Ist Class. He then contends that the trial of the present case is likely to take a considerable time because of the heavy pendency in the trial court and as such the petitioner deserves the concession of bail. 5. Learned counsel then contends that, in fact, the prosecution agency in order to by-pass the provisions of section 167(2) filed incomplete challan before the trial Court on 30.4.2003 so that the petitioner could not get the bail on the basis of non-presentation of the challan within the stipulated period. Strengthening his arguments, he further contended that the petitioner had surrender on 1.2.2003 in the Court whereas his formal arrest was made on 3.2.2003 and the challan presented before the trial court on 30.4.2003. It was with respect to only three items. According to the learned counsel, the presentation of the challan in part is in fact non-compliance of provisions of section 167(2) Criminal Procedure Code and the petitioner, thus, is entitled to bail on this count as well. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel has relied upon judgment of Bombay High Court rendered in Sunil Vasantrao Phulbande & anr. v. State of Maharashtra, 2003(2) RCR(Crl.) 171 and judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court rendered in Matchumari China Venkatareddy and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1994 Crl. L.J. 257. 6. Controverting the arguments advanced by Mr. Ghai, Mr. Handa vehemently submits that the allegations against the petitioner are very serious. He being a Chartered Accountant has committed a white coloured (colloared?) offence by cheating the Income Tax Department of lacs of rupees and as such the petitioner does not deserve the concession of regular bail. 7. Meeting the other limb of argument, Mr. Handa contended that so far as presentation of challan in this case is concerned, the prosecution agency was within its right to file the challan in three items only. Mr. 7. Meeting the other limb of argument, Mr. Handa contended that so far as presentation of challan in this case is concerned, the prosecution agency was within its right to file the challan in three items only. Mr. Handa has referred to section 219(1) of Criminal Procedure Code in this respect and submitted that the investigating agency was competent to split up the challan and as such the instant challan cannot be said to be incomplete challan. 8. After hearing rival contentions of both the sides, I am of the view that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of bail in this case on any count. 9. As stated above, the petitioner had opened 74 accounts in different banks in the name of different firms and fake files have been submitted by the petitioner in the Income Tax Department. The petitioner in the lust of money has forgotten the basic principles of the professional ethics. Simply that the petitioner is in custody since long and the offences are triable by Magistrate Ist Class, in my view, cannot be a ground for releasing the petitioner on bail. The nature of the allegations and the seriousness of the offence are also to be kept in mind by the Court while considering application for bail. Considering the peculiar circumstances of the present case, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief on the merits of the case. 10. So far as other contention is concerned. I find no force in the same as well. As stated by the learned counsel for the State on the instructions supplied to him by the Investigating Officer who was present in the Court that there are more than 100 income tax returns filed by the petitioner for the purpose of cheating the Income Tax Department and a separate challan which was complete with regard to three items (i.e. three income tax returns) was filed in the Court. That way of the said challan was complete in all respects. In case the prosecution agency intends to split up the challan, in my view, there is no irregularity in it. 11. The above referred judgments on which the learned counsel for the petitioner is heavily relying, in my view, are not applicable to the facts of the present case and would not lend any help to strengthen the contention. 12. In case the prosecution agency intends to split up the challan, in my view, there is no irregularity in it. 11. The above referred judgments on which the learned counsel for the petitioner is heavily relying, in my view, are not applicable to the facts of the present case and would not lend any help to strengthen the contention. 12. Consequently, the present application is dismissed being devoid of any merit. 13. However, I have been told by Mr. Handa, the learned counsel for the State that the next date before the trial Court is 7.8.2003. The trial Court is directed to complete the trial expeditiously. Petition dismissed.