Pragati Pre Fab India Private ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 1943 Bom

                                    1/4                         3.1 WP-280-21.doc


           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.280 OF 2021


Pragati Pre Fab India Private Limited & Ors.               ..       Petitioners
      Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors.                                ..       Respondents
                                  ...

Dr.Sujay Kantawala with Mr.Sameer Dalal, Mr.Sujit Sahoo, Mr.Aditya
Talpade i/b Mr.Adithya R. Iyer for the Petitioners.
Mr.Suresh Kumar for Respondent Nos.2 and 3.
Mrs.S.D.Shinde, APP for Respondent No.1/State.

                 CORAM:          S.S.SHINDE &
                                 MANISH PITALE, JJ.

DATED : 29th JANUARY, 2021

P.C:-

1. Heard Mr.Kantawala, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioners.

2. By this writ petition, the petitioners seek quashing of an order issuing process dated 20th August, 2018 and C.C.No.470 of 2018 emanating thereunder, pending before the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 38th Court, Ballard Pier, Mumbai for offences punishable under Section 276C(2) r/w Section 278B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioners have also challenged an order whereby sanction was granted for prosecution of the petitioners under the said provisions.

M.M.Salgaonkar





                                  2/4                    3.1 WP-280-21.doc

3. It is significant that the offences were registered against the petitioners, way back in the year 2018 wherein process was issued in August, 2018, while the petitioners had applied for closing the case vide Exhibit 14. The said application was rejected by the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai on 21 st January, 2021 and it is thereafter that the petitioners have chosen to move the present writ petition, seeking the aforesaid reliefs.

4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the sanction order as well as the launching of prosecution under the aforesaid provisions is unsustainable for the reason that the petitioners had already deposited 20% of the tax liability due from them, during pendency of appeal proceedings. It is submitted that therefore the entire exercise of issuing sanction order and initiating prosecution deserves to be set aside.

5. Issue notice for final disposal, returnable on 12th March, 2021.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners was heard on the question of interim relief. It was submitted that prima facie case is made out by the petitioners as the prosecution launched in the present case, on a proper interpretation of the relevant provisions is erroneous.

7. Mr.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3, vehemently opposed grant of interim relief. He submitted that prosecution was launched against the petitioners after valid sanction order. It was brought to the notice of this Court that even as per statement made in the writ petition, the disputed amount was Rs.7,37,609/- and that petitioner No.1 had paid only

M.M.Salgaonkar

3/4 3.1 WP-280-21.doc

Rs.1,50,000/-. The learned counsel further relied on judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr. 1 to contend that this Court ought not to grant relief in this case as the petitioners are involved in activity akin to financial fraud or misdemeanor.

8. We have perused the material on record. In view of the fact that prosecution was initiated after sanction from the concerned authority and specific disputed amount is stated in the writ petition itself, apart from the same being mentioned in the sanction order, we are of the opinion that interim relief in terms of prayer clause (c) can be granted only by putting the petitioners to appropriate terms. Considering the material on record, it would be appropriate that the petitioners are directed to deposit an amount of Rs.4,90,000/- with the concerned authority within a period of four weeks from today, as a pre-condition for grant of interim relief. This shall be without prejudice to the contentions of the rival parties and subject to the result of the present writ petition.

9. It is made clear that if the petitioners fail to deposit the amount in the aforesaid stipulated period of time, the interim order shall not operate.

10. Mr.Suresh Kumar waives notice on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3 and Mrs.S.D.Shinde, APP waives notice on behalf of respondent No.1.

1 (2017) 9 SCC 641

M.M.Salgaonkar





                                  4/4              3.1 WP-280-21.doc


11.     Stand over to 12th March, 2021.



      (MANISH PITALE, J.)                   (S.S.SHINDE, J.)




M.M.Salgaonkar