Smt. Savita Babbar vs The State (Nct Of Delhi)
2005 Latest Caselaw 575 Del

JUDGMENT

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.

1. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the co-accused Ramesh Kumar, who was a partner in the firm known as 'S.R. Metal Works' was arrested and remained in judicial custody for about a month and was thereafter released on regular bail. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although the present petitioner, who is a lady, is a partner in the said concern, the day-to-day affairs of the said concern were being looked after by the said co-accused Ramesh Kumar. In the present case, the allegation pertains to the submission of obsolete ST-35 Forms by the said firm to the complainant (M.M.T.C.) for the purposes of obtaining advantages under the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975. The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the contents of the FIR to show that the case for the prosecution rested on an order passed by the Sales Tax officer on 10.07.2003 during the course of reassessment of sales tax for the period 1994-95 in respect of the complainant (M.M.T.C.), wherein it had been held that three ST-35 Forms which had been submitted by the petitioner to M.M.T.C. for purchases made by the petitioner from M.M.T.C. were declared to have been obsolete and, therefore, could not form the basis of tax exemptions. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the matter has not ended there inasmuch as the M.M.T.C. has filed an appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and the same is pending. He referred to an order dated 15.04.2004 wherein the M.M.T.C. had requested for a waiver of pre-deposit in respect of the filing of the appeal. The order clearly indicates that the appeal is pending and is yet to be disposed of.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that, in any event, a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) has been arrived at between the said S.R. Metal Works and the complainant (M.M.T.C.) so as to secure the interest of the M.M.T.C. in the event the sales tax cases go against M.M.T.C. A bank guarantee has also been issued in favor of M.M.T.C. In these circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the interests of M.M.T.C. as well as of the revenue have been fully secured and, therefore, a case for grant of anticipatory bail in respect of the present petitioner is clearly made out. He also submitted that throughout the period from 12.03.2004, when notice was issued in this matter, the petitioner has not been called for investigation even once and, therefore, this in itself discloses that there is no necessity for custodial interrogation.

3. Mr Pawan Sharma, the learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The sum and substance of his submissions is that obsolete ST-35 Forms had been utilised by the said firm (S.R. Metal Works) for obtaining benefits under the Sales Tax regime. He submitted that the forms were, in fact, issued in the name of some other concerns and somehow the said S.R. Metal Works utilised the same for their purposes and, therefore, the case under Sections 420, 468 and 471 has been registered against, inter alia, the present petitioner. He further submitted that these forms had been declared to be obsolete as far back as in 1993 itself yet, they were utilised in 1994 and, therefore, prima facie an offence has been made out. Therefore, he submitted that custodial interrogation of the petitioner would be necessary and anticipatory bail ought not to be granted.

4. Keeping in mind the fact that the person who runs the day-to-day affairs of the said firm had been arrested and was subjected to custodial interrogation and thereafter spent about five weeks in judicial custody, it does appear to me that custodial interrogation insofar as the present petitioner is concerned, would be an exercise in futility. This is so because the co-accused Ramesh Kumar was the main person who ran the affairs of the said firm known as S.R. Metal Works and it is he who had knowledge of all the activities, including the acquisition and submission of the said ST-35 Forms. Apart from this, the other consideration is that the present petitioner is a lady. Keeping these factors in mind, I direct that the petitioner, in the event of her arrest, shall be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer.

This order shall operate till seven days after the filing of the chargesheet.