Judgment : C.R. Dash, J. In this petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C., the petitioner has impugned the order dated 22.12.2007 passed by learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Sambalpur in C.T.R. Case No.84 of 2007 taking cognizance of the offence under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120-B, I.P.C. as against the petitioner and others. 2. Compendium of relevant facts for disposal of this Criminal Misc. Case is as follows : On 02.08.2000 and 03.08.2000, the petitioner being the agent of M/s. Bondia Flour and Oil Mill, Jharsuguda had received 21 wagons of wheat weighing 12,204 quintals at Railway Goods Shed, Jharsuguda. The wheat in question was purchased and transported from M/s. Maa Durga Edible Products Pvt. Ltd, Chiranjilal Satya Narayan and Kedarnath Hariram, all of Uttar Pradesh. M/s. Bondia Flour and Oil Mills Pvt. Ltd. had paid a sum of Rs.85,02,883/-(rupees eighty-five lakh two thousand eight hundred eighty-three) to the above firms vide Demand Drafts issued at Punjab National Bank, Jharsuguda Branch. On 28.09.2004, the F.I.R. was lodged by Inspector Vigilance, Jharsuguda alleging therein that M/s. Bondia Flour and Oil Mills, Jharsuguda did not pay Sales Tax of Rs.3,40,115/-(rupees three lakh forty thousand one hundred fifteen) nor reflected any payment of Sales Tax towards wheat in the Sales Tax Return filed in the said period. It is also alleged that some of the officials such as the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Inspector of Commercial Tax and a Peon of the department along with the present petitioner hatched a criminal conspiracy for evasion of tax and thereby misconducted themselves as public servant. On the basis of the aforesaid F.I.R., Sambalpur Vigilance P.S. Case No.37 of 2004 was registered for alleged offence under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 120-B, I.P.C. and Section 25 of the Sales Tax Act. Investigation was taken up. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer and the petitioner for the aforesaid offence. After submission of charge-sheet learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Sambalpur by the impugned order dated 22.12.2007 took cognizance of offence under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 120-B, I.P.C. On consideration of materials on record, learned Special Judge (Vigilance) thought it proper not to take cognizance of offence under Section 25 of the Sales Tax Act. 3. In this petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C., extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked to quash the order of cognizance dated 22.12.2007 passed by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Sambalpur on the following grounds :- (I) The consignment of wheat having been purchased from outside the State of Odisha, M/s. Bondia Flour and Oil Mills was not liable to pay Sales Tax on sale turn-over of wheat till its first sale (first point sale) inside the State. In view of such fact, there was no occasion for evasion of sales tax by bringing the consignment from the Railway Goods Shed and there was no scope for any conspiracy; (II) The Sales Tax liability, if any, being of the firm M/s. Bondia Flour and Oil Mills, the petitioner was not liable to pay any sales tax, as he was only the agent of the firm to receive the goods from Railway Goods Shed. As such, the petitioner being the agent is in no way criminally liable for any wrongful act of the proprietor of the Mill or the Firm M/s. Bondia Flour and Oil Mills. 4. Oppugning the contentions raised by Mr. H.K. Mund, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. P.K. Pani, learned Addl. Standing Counsel, Vigilance Department submits that in view of the Explanation to Section 8 of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947, the petitioner having received the consignment of wheat inside the State of Odisha dispatched from outside, such receipt of goods inside the State itself shall be treated as first point of Sale and the petitioner being the agent of M/s. Bondia Flour and Oil Mills is liable to pay tax on the cost of the consignment. It is further submitted that, the petitioner though the agent, having conspired with the sales tax Officials to bring the consignment out of the railway goods shed, the action of the petitioner being an offence under Section 16-B of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 read with Rule 94-B of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules and Section 25 of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, the petitioner is the only private person criminally liable. 5. Learned Addl. 5. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Department having relied on the Explanation to Section 8 of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 to substance his contention that, on receipt of the consignment of wheat in the State of Odisha, M/s. Bondia Flour and Oil Mills is deemed to have received the goods on sale in the first point and he is therefore liable to pay tax, it is apposite to reproduce the explanation for ready reference, which reads as follows : “Explanation-Where in a series of sales, tax is notified to be levied at the first point, such point, in respect of goods dispatched from outside the State of Orissa shall mean and shall always be deemed to have meant the first of such sales effected by a dealer liable under the Act after the goods are actually taken delivery of by him inside the State of Orissa.” Section 8 deals with powers of the State Government to notify points at which goods may be taxed or exempted. It is an admitted fact at the Bar and a fact without any dispute that sales tax levy in Odisha is a single point levy. Tax can be levied by selecting a particular point in the series of sales starting from producer/ manufacturer / importer / commission agent till it reaches the consumer. Still for the goods declared under Section 3-B, point of levy of tax is on the first point of purchase by the dealer liable to pay tax inside the State. A cursory reading of the aforesaid Explanation to the Section makes it abundantly clear that the first point sale in respect of goods prescribed under the Section shall always be deemed to be the first point of such sale effected by dealer, who is liable to pay tax under the Act after he has actually taken delivery inside the State of Odisha. It seems learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Department is labouring under misconception to contend that on receipt of the goods inside the State of Odisha on its purchase from outside, M/s. Bondia Flour and Oil Mills is deemed to have received the goods inside the State of Odisha on sales. It seems learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Department is labouring under misconception to contend that on receipt of the goods inside the State of Odisha on its purchase from outside, M/s. Bondia Flour and Oil Mills is deemed to have received the goods inside the State of Odisha on sales. M/s. Bondia Flour and Oil Mills here in the present case have received the consignment of wheat inside the State of Odisha on 02.08.2000 and 03.08.2000 on purchase from different dealers in Uttar Pradesh. There is nothing on record to show as to whether M/s. Bondia Flour and Oil Mills had procured the consignment for its own consumption or for onward subsequent sale by itself to different dealers or consumers. The tax rates under Orissa Sales Tax Law clearly show that wheat is taxable at the first point of sale and the rate of tax was 4% at the relevant time. 6. The basis of initiation of the present proceeding is that M/s. Bondia Flour and Oil Mills, Jharsuguda did not pay tax of Rs.3,40,115/-nor it reflected any payment of sales tax towards wheat in Sales Tax Return filed in the said period. The basis of allegation by the Vigilance Department itself is misconceived, in as much as M/s. Bondia Flour and Oil Mills having received the consignment of wheat in the State of Odisha from Uttar Pradesh, had not yet effected any sale and the taxable event had not yet reached to reflect the sales tax in the return filed by it. Further, there is nothing on record to show whether the aforesaid consignment of wheat had been brought by M/s. Bondia Flour and Oil Mills for its own consumption. Looking from the aforesaid perspective, it is clear that the Vigilance Department labouring under misconception has built the edifice of the prosecution case on the basis that, as M/s. Bondia Flour and Oil Mills, Jharsuguda did not pay sales tax of Rs.3,40,115/-nor reflected any payment of sales tax towards wheat in the said period in the return filed by it, has evaded the tax. In view of such fact, the very basis of accusation therefore is misconceived and the prosecution lunched has no legs to stand. 7. It is strenuously submitted by Mr. In view of such fact, the very basis of accusation therefore is misconceived and the prosecution lunched has no legs to stand. 7. It is strenuously submitted by Mr. Pani, learned Additional Standing Counsel (Vigilance Department) that the petitioner having contravened Section 16-B of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 and Rule 94-B of the Rules made thereunder, he is to be held to have conspired with the Sales Tax Officials to take the consignment of wheat from the railway goods shed without paying any tax and it is to be further held that by the conspiracy between the Sales Tax Officials and the petitioner, the tax having been evaded, they must be held to have put the state to loss. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner having received the goods on behalf of M/s. Bondia Flour and Oil Mills as their agent, neither he is liable to pay tax nor he has conspired with any Sales Tax Officer to evade tax. 8. Before addressing the point raised by learned counsels for the parties, it is apposite to reiterate here that the basis of the prosecution allegation is evasion of tax. The same allegation has come to be reiterated by Mr. Pani, learned Additional Standing Counsel (Vigilance Department), so far as the contravention of Section 16-B of the Act and Rule 94-B of the Rules made thereunder is concerned. It is emphatically submitted by Mr. Pani, learned Additional Standing Counsel (Vigilance Department) that the Goods Register of the Railway Receipt Unit Office of the ACTO maintained post-dated revealed that 21 wagons of wheat imported from Roja Junction to Jharsuguda Railway Goods Shed on 02 and 03.8.2000 has been received by the petitioner, but no Sales Tax has been collected by the Sales Tax Officials from the consignment of wheat, though Sales Tax have been collected from other items on that day. I have already discussed that the consignment of wheat having been purchased from outside the State of Odisha, the taxable event shall not come till it is sold by the consignee in the of State of Odisha after its receipt by the consignee, i.e., M/s. Bondia Flour and Oil Mills. I have already discussed that the consignment of wheat having been purchased from outside the State of Odisha, the taxable event shall not come till it is sold by the consignee in the of State of Odisha after its receipt by the consignee, i.e., M/s. Bondia Flour and Oil Mills. If the consignee had brought the consignment of wheat for its own consumption, no Sales Tax shall be leviable on consumption of wheat by the company and Sales Tax can only be leviable on by-product of the wheat when such by-product is dispatched to market for sale. In that view of the matter, there was no occasion for collection of tax in respect of the consignment of wheat at the Railway Receipt Unit, Jharsuguda on taking delivery of the wheat either by M/s. Bondia Flour and Oil Mills Ltd or their agent. Therefore, the allegation of the Vigilance Department to the effect that Sales Tax has not been collected on consignment of wheat as shown in the entry of Goods incoming Register of Railway Receipt Unit, Jharsuguda, is totally misconceived. 9. I do not dispute the claim of Mr. Pani, learned Additional Standing Counsel (Vigilance Department) to the effect that there has been contravention of Section 16-B of the Act and Rule 94-B of the Rules made thereunder. Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 being a self-contained Code, such contravention could have been taken care of by the Sales Tax Department by taking resort to provision for penalty in Section 16-C of the Act or by taking resort to lunching of prosecution under Section 25 of the Act or the Officers concerned could have been proceeded with departmentally. But no case for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act is made out for such contravention on the misconceived ground that there was conspiracy to evade tax. 10. Coming to the last contention, it is submitted by Mr. Pani, learned Addl. Standing Counsel (Vigilance Department) that, during investigation, evidence came out that Sri Kamal Prasad Bondia (present petitioner) was the representative / agent of Radhakrishna Bondia, the proprietor of M/s Bondia Flour and Oil Mills Pvt. Ltd., Jharsuguda, and all the payments made against the consignment in question was arranged by the present petitioner through Drafts of Punjab National Bank, Jharsuguda. Standing Counsel (Vigilance Department) that, during investigation, evidence came out that Sri Kamal Prasad Bondia (present petitioner) was the representative / agent of Radhakrishna Bondia, the proprietor of M/s Bondia Flour and Oil Mills Pvt. Ltd., Jharsuguda, and all the payments made against the consignment in question was arranged by the present petitioner through Drafts of Punjab National Bank, Jharsuguda. Further, it came to light and an admitted fact that the present petitioner had received all the 21 wagons of wheat from Mr. A. Narayan Rao, the Chief Goods Supervisor, Railway Receipt Unit, Jharsuguda on 02.08.2000 and 03.08.2000, as revealed from the statements given by Mr. A. Narayan Rao. It is emphatically submitted by Mr. Pani, learned Addl. Standing Counsel (Vigilance Department) that, as per Section 16-B of the Orissa Sales Tax Act and Rule 94-B of the Rules made thereunder, the petitioner was liable to pay tax at the railway station by making a written declaration in Form-XXXIV in duplicate duly signed by such Sales Tax Authority as per the rule. 11. I have already discussed the contention of Mr. Pani, learned Addl. Standing Counsel (Vigilance) regarding Section 16-B of the Orissa Sales Tax Act and Rule 94-B of the Rules made thereunder. It is submitted by Mr. H.K. Mund, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the petitioner being the agent of M/s. Bondia Flour and Oil Mills, Jharsuguda, he was not liable to pay any sales tax, and his duty was to receive the goods for or on behalf of the proprietor. 12. It is not in dispute that, Sales Tax Authority is entitled to impose sales tax in accordance with the relevant Act and Rules, upon a person, who carries on the business of selling goods and who has, in the customary course of business, authority to sell goods belonging to the Principal. A clearing or forwarding agent like the petitioner or a person transporting goods on behalf of the dealer does not carry on the business of selling goods and does not have, in the customary course of the business, authority to sell goods belonging to the dealer, whose goods he books or receives. There has to be a reasonable and proximate connection between the transaction of sale and the clearing or forwarding agent or person transporting the goods before the Sales Tax Authority can, in exercise of the power, levy sales tax. There has to be a reasonable and proximate connection between the transaction of sale and the clearing or forwarding agent or person transporting the goods before the Sales Tax Authority can, in exercise of the power, levy sales tax. From the materials on record, there is nothing to show that in the present case there was such close and direct connection between the transaction of sale of goods by the dealer and the clearing or forwarding agent or the agent who booked or received such goods or a person, who transports such goods like the petitioner. The petitioner being, therefore, a simple agent acting on behalf of the proprietor, cannot be held to have any sales tax liability and he cannot be held to have conspired with the Sales Tax Authority to transport the goods without complying the relevant provisions, as he was acting under the instruction of the Principal (proprietor). 13. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of K. Neelaveni vrs. State Rep. by Insp. Of Police & Ors., (2010) 46 OCR (SC) 75, 2010 (1) OLR (SC) 791 has held that, while considering the application for quashing of charge-sheet, the allegations made in the F.I.R. and the materials collected during the course of investigation are required to be considered. Truthfulness or otherwise of the allegation is not fit to be gone into at this stage, as it is always a matter of trial. Considered in the light of the aforesaid dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the entire facts on record makes it clear, as discussed supra, that the prosecution has been launched against the petitioner on the misconceived notion that M/s. Bondia Flour and Oil Mills was liable to pay sales tax on receipt of 21 wagons of wheat, and the petitioner being the agent had conspired to evade tax. 14. Taking into consideration the materials on record in its entirety and the discussion supra, I am of the considered view that, no offence under Section 120-B, I.P.C. is made out against the petitioner, and for that matter no offence under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is also made out against the petitioner. Accordingly, the proceeding so far as the present petitioner is concerned, is quashed. The CRLMC is accordingly allowed. CRLMC allowed.