Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 875 (RAJ)

Tata Devy Ltd v. UOI

2025-03-20

FARJAND ALI

body2025
Order : FARJAND ALI, J 1. By way of filing the instant criminal misc. petition, a challenge is made to the order framing charges by the learned trial Court so also the order passed in revisional jurisdiction. 1.2 Heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the niceties of the matter. 2. Bereft of elaborate details succinctly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent-department conducted search on the premises of the petitioner and whereupon the act of tax evasion was observed. Based upon the search and inspection report and the determination being made, the respondent department instituted a criminal complaint before the Court of competent jurisdiction. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and whereafter recorded pre-charge evidence, in which, eight witnesses got recorded whereafter both the parties were heard on the question of charge. As per Section 245 of the Cr.P.C ., the Court can discharge an accused in the event when it is felt that no case is made out against the accused, even if the evidence recorded not rebutted, warrant conviction of the accused. However, observing sufficiency of the material, the learned trial Court directed to frame charges against the petitioner under the penal provisions of Central Excise Act . 2.1 Aggrieved by the above, the petitioner preferred a revision petition where both the parties were heard, however, the petition got dismissed. Hence, both the orders under challenge are before this Court by way of filing the instant petition. 2.2 A twist had entered into the matter when the finding of evasion of the tax was made to challenge by the petitioner to the appellate authority and after hearing both the parties, the order of determination and evasion of tax was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the Commissioner Excise, Jaipur Second Authority. The matter was heard again by the appropriate authority, however, the first order was re-affirmed. Again challenge was made and then the appellate authority set aside the order passed by the adjudicating authority and the matter was remanded back for fresh consideration. It happened on four occasions. As on date, the initial order of evasion of tax, based upon which, the criminal complaint was filed does not exist and the matter is pending adjudication before the adjudicating authority. It happened on four occasions. As on date, the initial order of evasion of tax, based upon which, the criminal complaint was filed does not exist and the matter is pending adjudication before the adjudicating authority. The plea taken in this petition seems justifiable and worth considerable that the base order whereby the determination of tax evasion was made does not survive and therefore, still directing prosecution against the petitioner to punish him would not be justifiable. 2.3 I have pondered over the issue so also that in certain cases even after the tax evasion order is set aside, a criminal prosecution can be continued but here in this case, it cannot be ignored that the very basis of filing of the complaint with the respondent was the order of determination of tax evasion which has been set asided by the appellate authority and presently the matter is pending consideration before the adjudicating authority. 3. In view of the above, the order dated 18.08.2008 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, (Economic Offences), Jodhpur in Criminal Original Case No.05/2000 and the order dated 14.07.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, No.3, Jodhpur Metro in Criminal Revision No.127/2008 are hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned trial Court. At the same time, it is felt apposite to direct the adjudicating authority to decide the issue pending before it within a period of 60 days after receipt of a copy of this order and then pass a final order. The said order shall be placed before the learned trial Court. The order of the adjudicating authority so also the material produced before the Court during the inquiry and the pre-charge evidence, shall be considered before passing an order on the question of charge. The parties shall be heard again so as to ascertain whether sufficient material is there or not to direct the petitioner to face the course of trial. 4. In this view of the matter, the instant misc. petition is disposed of.