State Of W. B. vs Narayan K. Patodia

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2000 Supreme(SC) 721

2000(3) Supreme 141
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Calcutta High Court)
K.T. Thomas & D.P. Mohapatra, JJ.
State of West Bengal -Appellant
versus
Narayan K. Patodia -Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 337 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1215 of 1999)
Decided on 6-4-2000
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Dipankar P. Gupta, Sr. Advocate, Tara Chandra Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Mrinal Mandal, Ranjan Mukherjee, Advocates.

Headnote:Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section 482 r/w Section 88 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994-Quashment of FIR-Legality of-Offence under West Bengal Sales Tax Act of impersonation and obtaining registration in fictitious name-Complaint under Sections 403, 409, 465, 468, 471, 420 r/w 120B of IPC and Section 88(1)(b)(6) and (7) of Sales Tax Act-High Court quashing FIR on ground police officer cannot investigate offence since offence under Sales Tax Act could be investigated by Bureau of Investigation constituted by State Government alone-Untenable-No provision in Sale Tax Act inhibiting powers of police under Cr.P.C.-Further offence under IPC also involved which could be investigated by police-FIR is first step towards investigation-High Court committed serious error in quashing FIR.
       Held : There is nothing in the West Bengal Sales Tax Act which inhibits the powers of the police as conferred by the Code of Civil Procedure. There is nothing in Section 7 that such investigation can be carried on "only" by the Bureau and not any other investigating agency. It is open to the Bureau to get the assistance of any other legally constituted investigating agency for effectively inquiring into all the ramifications of the offence. As in this case if offences falling under the Indian Penal Code or any other enactment are also detected during the course of investigation conducted by the Bureau there is no inhibition to pass over the investigation to the regular police. (Para 16)
       If the view of the learned single judge gets approval it would lead to startling consequences. The consequences of such an interpretation would be that if the person who commits the offence under Section 88 of the Act also commits other serious offences falling under Indian Penal Code as part of the same transaction neither the regular police nor any special police force nor even the Central Bureau of Investigation can be authorised to conduct investigation. The accused in such cases would then be well ensconced insulated from the legal consequences of proper and effective investigation. Criminal justice would be the serious casualty then. That apart, how could the FIR be quashed if the investigating agency should have ben different? By lodging FIR alone no investigation is conducted by the police. It is the first step towards starting investigation by the police. If High Court was of the opinion that investigation has to be conducted by the Bureau then also there was no need to quash the FIR. Any way we take the view that as offences under the Indian Penal Code are also involved, efficacious investigation can be conducted by entrusting it to the police investigating agency. Inherent powers of the High Court as recognised in Section 482 of the Code are reserved to be used "to give effect to any orders under the Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice". It is quite unfortunate that learned single judge overlooked the reality that by quashing the FIR in the case the High Court did not achieve any one of the above factors. On the contrary, the result of quashing the FIR had rendered the allegations of offences made against a person to remain consigned in stupor perennially. Hence, instead of achieving ends of criminal justice, the impugned order would achieve the reverse of it. So from any angle, the High Court has committed serious error in quashing the FIR. (Paras 17 to 19)

JUDGMENT

Thomas, J.-Leave granted.

2. The High Court of Calcutta has quashed the FIR registered in a Police Station mainly on the ground that the person who forwarded the complaint to the police had no authority to do so. The State of West Bengal has, therefore, filed this Appeal by Special Leave. The FIR was registered for certain offences under the Indian Penal Code and West Bengal Sales Tax Act 1994 (for short the Sales Tax Act ). The complaint which was made the basis for such an FIR contained the allegations that respondent submitted two applications on 21.1.1998 before the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Burdwan impersonating himself as one Mohan Agrawal (478 Katwa Road, Hari Narainpur, Burdwan) who is a fictitious person, respondent signed the applications in the false name of the said Agrawal and described him as a businessman dealing in spices under the trade name "Parbati Traders". The applications were made in the Proforma (Form-A) prescribed under the West Bengal Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957, and they were appended with documents all of which were forged. On the basis of the said fabricated documents respondent obtained registration under the Sales Tax Act, which entitled him to make purchases at concessional rate of sales tax, and also to receive permits for importing spices from outside the State. On the strength of the registration so obtained the respondent applied for the issue of five permits to import spices the sales tax of which would have been 2.73 lacs. In those applications again the respondent personated himself to be the aforesaid fictitious Mohan Agrawal.

3. When the Bureau of Investigation formed by the Government of West Bengal under the Sales Tax Act, got secret information about the fraud played by the respondent they conducted some discreet investigation and then it was revealed to them that the respondent had committed the said forgery and impersonation to defraud the government of huge sales tax amount. It was further revealed that respondent had wangled another registration on 1.12.1977 in the fictitious name of Surendra Luhariwala who purportedly did business as "Luhariwala Trading Company, 33/1, N.S. Road Calcutta." By using the said registration respondent carried on business and defrauded the Government of sales tax to the tune of Rupees thirty-two lakhs.

4. The said complaint was presented by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes to the Deputy Superintendent of Police who was then attached to the Bureau of Investigation formed under the Sales Tax Act. The said Deputy Superintendent, in turn, forwarded the complaint to the officer in charge of Hare Street Police Station, Calcutta with a request to "start a case under Sections 403, 409, 465, 468, 471, 419, 420 read with 120B of Indian Penal Code and Section 88(1)(b)(6) and (7) of the Sales Tax Act, 1994 treating the complaint as FIR".

5. Pursuant thereto the Station House Officer of Hare Street Police Station registered the FIR. Respondent, getting scent of the same moved the City Civil Court, Calcutta for anticipatory bail but that was rejected on 11.6.1998. He then moved the High Court invoking its revisional and inherent jurisdiction for quashing the FIR and on such motion being made further investigation was stayed by the High Court as per order dated 17.6.1998. Finally the FIR was quashed as per the impugned judgment delivered by learned single judge of the Calcutta High Court on 19.11.1998.

6. Learned single judge advanced the following reasoning, inter alia, for quashing the FIR:

"Under Section 7 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, the Bureau of Investigation constituted under the said Act is the only competent authority to investigate in respect of any offence under the said Act which means no other authority can carry out investigation or hold inquiry into any case of alleged or suspected evasion of tax as well as malpractices connected therewith. It also appears that under the provisions of Secti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2000 Supreme(SC) 721

Cases Referred (2)