I.S. ISRANI, J.—This is an application under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in Cr. case No. 340/86 pending trial in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences) Jaipur City, Jaipur, under Sec. 276 C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

2. A complaint u/s 276 C, 276 CC and 277 of the Act was filed in the Court of C.J.M. (Economic Offences), Jaipur City, Jaipur by the Income-tax Officer, Central Circile-II against the petitioner Learned C.J.M. under his order took cognizance of the offence and directed issuance of non-bailable warrant so as to effect attendance of the petitioner to face trial. Apprehending his arrest, a petition was moved in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur u/s 438 Cr.P.C., which was rejected by order dated December 8, 1986.

3. Mr. Jagdeep Dhanker, learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that a search was conducted at the premises of the petitioner on 12.5.81 and cash amounting to Rs. 96,838/- and ornaments valued by the Department at Rs. 48,905/- were found and according to the Department, the petitioner could not explain the source. It is also pointed out that so far as the amount of jewellery is concerned, its value keeps on rising by passage of time and the valuation put up by the Department is exaggerated. It is also pointed out that some jewellery has been showed to be owned substantively by the wife of the petitioner, but protectively has also been added to the ownership of the petitioner and it has been stated that the same jewellery cannot be taken to belong to two parties. Learned counsel, therefore, points out that under the provisions of Sec. 276 C (1) (i) of the Act, it is provided that if the amount sought to be evaded exceeds Rs. 1,00,000/-the imprisonment for a term shall not be less than 6 months, but may extend to 7 years and fine and under sub-clause (i) in any other case, the term of imprisonment shall not be less than 3 months, but may extend to 3 years with fine. He has, therefore, stressed that the offence, if any proved against the petitioner shall be covered by the later part of Sec. 276 C (ii) of the Act. Learned counsel further points out that the total tax required to be paid by the petitioner is Rs. 1,43,829/- which has been paid and the original receipts were produced in the court. It has been further pointed out that this tax amount has been paid even though an appeal against the summary order passed by the learned I.T.O. has been filed, which is still pending. The objections u/s 132 (ii) of the Act have also been filed and several reminders to decide the same have been sent to the Department, but with no effect and the objections are still pending. He has pointed out that the petitioner is a respectable person and is not involved in any criminal case and has no conviction to his discredit.

4. Mr. Amar Singh, learned counsel for the Department, has on the other hand stressed that apart from the proceedings u/s 276 C and 276 CC, proceedings u/s 277 have also been initiated against the petitioner. He has also pointed out that the matter of foreign exchange of recovery of certain amount of Liras is also involved against the petitioner. The value of Liras in Indian currency, according to the learned counsel, is about Rs. 10/-. Learned counsel has stressed that the petitioner keeps on going out of India frequently and may not be available to the Department, if required at any time. He has drawn my attention to the case of Pokar Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan (1). This was a case regarding anticipatory bail moved by a person, who was accused of committing murder by fire-arms. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed that in such cases the courts approach should be cautious and relevant considerations for grant of anticipatory bail in such cases differ from those for granting other kind of bails. In this case, the anticipatory bail granted by this court was cancelled. He has also drawn my attent

Click Here to Read the rest of this document