JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Shri Atul Mehra, learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and examined the record. 2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the applicants for quashing the charge-sheet dated 26.05.1995, order dated 17.1.2007 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Allahabad by which the learned court below rejected the discharge application moved by the applicants in Criminal Case No.294 of 2004 registered under Sections 41/411 I.P.C. at Police Station Daraganj, District Allahabad and the revisional order dated 07.10.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court, by which the revision was dismissed on the ground that against the interlocutory order revision is not maintainable. 3. The brief facts of the case are that on 02.06.1994, the police had intercepted the applicants' Maruti Car No. U.P.-82A-0144 at Shastri Bridge Chungi at Allahabad and after the search, 151 kg. of Silver, 4.5 kg. silver ornaments and Rs.2,73,000/- cash were recovered from the possession of the applicants. On the very same day i.e. on 02.06.1994, an FIR has been lodged at P.S. Daraganj, District Allahabad under Sections 41/411 I.P.C. and applicants were arrested. 4. During the investigation, the statements of nine persons have been recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and except one Trade Tax Officer all the remaining witnesses were the Police personnels and the charge-sheet was filed against the applicants under Section 41/411 I.P.C. 5. From the perusal of the statement of Trade Tax Officer, it has come out that after lodging of the FIR, the matter has been referred to the Trade Tax Department for initiation of proceedings under the provisions of U.P. Trade Tax Act. 6. The applicants moved a bail application before the Sessions Court and there the applicants had stated that the goods in question belonged to M/s Sarvshri Chardeva Abhushan Bhandar, Buxar (Bihar) and the silver and cash seized were entered in the books of account of the firm and the said documents were filed with the bail application. Learned trial court had released the car and the cash in favour of the applicants. 7. On the intimation by the police to the Trade Tax Department, a notice dated 02.06.1994 was issued by the Sales Tax Officer, Allahabad. 8. Learned trial court had released the car and the cash in favour of the applicants. 7. On the intimation by the police to the Trade Tax Department, a notice dated 02.06.1994 was issued by the Sales Tax Officer, Allahabad. 8. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicants is that the applicants are not liable to pay any tax on goods seized by the police under the Trade Tax Act for the reason, the applicants are not the importer as per the definition of importer provided under Section 2E of the U.P. Trade Tax Act and contesting the matter before the authorities. 9. Reliance has been placed upon Section 15A(1)(o) and Section 28-A of U.P. Trade Tax Act to show that the goods seized do not fall within the purview of above-noted provisions. 10. Learned counsel for the applicants has further contended that Sales/Trade Tax Revision No.597 of 2002 was preferred before this Court, under Section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act against the order of the Tribunal dated 26.08.2002, by which the Tribunal has confirmed the penalty imposed on the assessee/applicants for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- under Section 15A(1)(o) and the said revision was allowed by this Court by setting aside the order of the Tribunal vide it order dated 09.08.2010. It will be useful to quote the relevant part of the order absolving the applicants from imposition of any penalty under the Act. It reads as follows:- “The present revision has been filed by the assessee under Section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax against an order of the Tribunal dated 26.08.02, by which the Tribunal has confirmed the penalty imposed on the assessee for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- under Section 15A(1)(o). The facts of the case are that the goods of the assessee were seized at Allahabd. He was carrying his goods from Agra to Indore. After the seizure was made, a penalty was also imposed on the assessee under Section 15A(1)(o). It is the contention of the learned counsel for the assessee that at the relevant time the assessee had applied before the authority that the goods which were seized were entered into the books of accounts of the assessee at his place of registration in Bihar and were duly cleared by the Income Tax Authorities also in the regular course of business. This contention is stated by the assessee in paragraph-10 of the revision. Thereafter, the assessee filed a supplementary affidavit in support of this contention and placed before this Court photocopies of the registration certificates under the Bihar Sales Tax Act and Central Sales Tax Act. In response to the contentions made in the supplementary affidavit, the State has filed a supplementary counter affidavit and has not in any manner doubted the veracity of the tax clearances filed by the assessee from Bihar. Thus, in view of the facts as stated in the supplementary counter affidavit, it becomes abundantly clear that the averments made by the applicant in the revision were correct. Since the entries of the items were duly accounted for in the books of accounts at his original place of business, the imposition under Section 15A(1)(o) is not justified. The penalty imposed upon the assessee is deleted. This revision is allowed. The order of the Tribunal is set aside. Dated: 9.8.10” 11. Under these circumstances, now no material is in existence against the applicants which may further compel them to face the criminal proceedings. It is further contended that Section 5 Cr.P.C. bars the simultaneous proceedings. It is further contended that if any proceedings could be initiated against the applicants that too with the previous sanction of the Commissioner as per Sub-section 3 of Section 14 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, which is also not taken and hence the proceedings are barred by Section 5 of Cr.P.C. 12. Learned counsel for the applicants placed reliance upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur And Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat And another 2018 (1) SCC (Cri) 1 and K. C. Builder Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 2004 (2) SCC 731 . 13. Learned counsel for the applicants placed reliance upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur And Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat And another 2018 (1) SCC (Cri) 1 and K. C. Builder Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 2004 (2) SCC 731 . 13. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the applicants and apprise this Court about the scope of interference by the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. He has further contended that there is no illegality in the order dated 17.01.2007 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, for the reason by that time the order of Sales/Trade Tax Revision No.597 of 2002 was not in existence and the revisional authority has rightly rejected the said revision vide its order dated 07.10.2008 as not maintainable against the interlocutory orders and there is no illegality or perversity in the orders. 14. After hearing the counsel for both the parties and examining the records, the questions which arise for consideration are as follows:- (i) whether after the judgment dated 09.08.2010 passed by this Court in Sales/Trade Tax Revision No.597 of 2002 any criminal proceedings or prosecution could be continued against the applicants. (ii) whether the applicants are not entitled for the benefit of Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent the abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. 15. The order dated 17.1.2007 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, rejecting the discharge application held that the applicants for evading the tax did not disclosed the possession of the silver, silver ornaments which is in contravention of Section 28-A of U.P. 16. Trade Tax Act and hence the seized goods of the applicants fall under Section 420 of I.P.C. The Trade Tax Department initiated the proceedings against the applicants under Section 15A(1)(o) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, which is quoted below:- [15-A. Penalties in certain cases.- (1) If the assessing authority is satisfied that any dealer or other person- [(o) imports or transports, or attempts to import or transport or abets the import or transport of any goods in contravention of the provisions of Section 28-A ;] 17. While rejecting the discharge application vide impugned order dated 17.01.2007 passed by the learned A.C.J.M. held that applicants just to evade tax liability under Section 28-A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act had not disclosed the silver and silver ornaments while entering in the State of U.P. committed offence under Section 420 of I.P.C. 18. The conjoint reading of Section 28-A and Section 15A(1)(o) clearly provides that in case of contravention of the provisions of Section 28- A of U.P. Trade Tax Act, the person is liable to be penalised under Section 15A(1)(o). 19. From the perusal of the FIR and the impugned order dated 17.01.2007 passed by the learned trial court clearly establishes that the basis of applying Section 420 of I.P.C. is that the applicants have acted in contravention of Section 28-A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act. 20. Though at the time of passing of the impugned order dated 17.01.2007 by the trial court, the judgment of the High Court was not there, it was passed subsequently, when the High Court in its judgment dated 09.08.2010 has held that the imposition of penalty under Section 15-A(1)(o) was not justified and set aside the order of the Tribunal and setting aside the order of penalty imposed upon the assessee/applicants and allowed the revision, then the very basis of the reason assigned in the order impugned dated 17.01.2007 itself goes and thereafter no occasion of continuation of the prosecution. 21. The FIR was lodged under Section 41 I.P.C., the provision is quoted below:- 41. "Special law".-A "special law" is a law applicable to a particular subject. 22. The reference of Special Law under Section 41 in the present case is U.P. Trade Tax Act and under Sub-section 3 of Section 14 of U.P. Trade Tax Act, provides that no court shall take cognizance of any offence under this Act, or the Rules made there under except with the previous sanction of the [Commissioner] whereas, there is no previous sanction of the Commissioner. Section 14(3) is quoted below:- 14. Offences and penalties. -(1) Any person who - (3) No court shall take cognizance of any offence under this Act, or the Rules made there under except with the previous sanction of the [Commissioner], and no court inferior to that of a Magistrate of the 1st class shall try any such offence. 23. Section 14(3) is quoted below:- 14. Offences and penalties. -(1) Any person who - (3) No court shall take cognizance of any offence under this Act, or the Rules made there under except with the previous sanction of the [Commissioner], and no court inferior to that of a Magistrate of the 1st class shall try any such offence. 23. The applicants are also entitled for the benefit of Section 5 Cr.P.C. Section 5 Cr.P.C. is quoted below:- 5. Saving.- Nothing contained in this Code shall, in the absence of a specific provision to the contrary, affect any special or local law for the time being in force, or any special jurisdiction or power conferred, or any special form of procedure prescribed, by any other law for the time being in force. 24. The perusal of Section 5 Cr.P.C., which is saving clause and protects the procedure provided under the provisions of U.P. Trade Tax Act for initiation of prosecution against the person who contravenes any of the provisions of U.P. Trade Tax Act. 25. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Case R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866 (FB) has held that jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised - either to prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Ordinarily criminal prosecution instituted against an accused person must be tried under the provisions of the Code and the High Court would be reluctant to interfere with the said proceedings at an interlocutory stage. 26. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Case of Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.) 283 has held that the High Court should not assume the role of a trial court and embark upon enquiry as to reliability of evidence and sustainability of accusation on a reasonable appreciation of evidence where it appears to the contrary, interference by High Court would be justified. The inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. must be exercised sparingly, carefully and with the caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in Section 482 Cr.P.C. The power to be exercised ex debito justi tiae to prevent abuse of process of Court. 27. The inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. must be exercised sparingly, carefully and with the caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in Section 482 Cr.P.C. The power to be exercised ex debito justi tiae to prevent abuse of process of Court. 27. After hearing both the parties and examining the record, I am of the considered view while exercising the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised;- (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court. 28. After the judgment dated 09.08.2010 in Sales/Trade Tax Revision No.597 of 2002 passed by this Court, the allegations against the applicants stood negated and nothing remained for which they would be made liable to face the criminal proceedings and no offence of cheating can be said to be made out against the applicants under Section 420 I.P.C. 29. As far as the revisional order dated 07.10.2008 is concerned there is no illegality or perversity in the same for the reason, the revision is not maintainable against the interlocutory orders. 30. Learned A.G.A. has not disputed this fact that after the judgment dated 09.08.2010 in Sales/Trade Tax Revision No.597 of 2002 passed by this Court, now nothing remains for which the applicants made liable to face prosecution/criminal proceedings. 31. For the facts and reasons, the continuation of the prosecution against the applicants would be illegal and nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court. 32. In view of the above observations, the application under Section 482 is, accordingly, allowed. 33. Under these circumstances, charge-sheet dated 26.05.1995, order dated 17.01.2007 as well as the criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No. 294 of 2004, under Sections 41/411 I.P.C., pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Allahabad, are hereby quashed.