Delhi High Court
Suresh Chand Goyal vs State & Anr on 30 July, 2018
$~14 & 15
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 30th July, 2018
+ CRL.M.C. 3002/2015 and Crl. MA 10720/2015
SURESH CHAND GOYAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vijay Aggarwal and Mr.
Mudit Jain, Advocates
versus
STATE & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Ravi Nayak, APP for the State
Mr. Puneet Rai, Standing Counsel, Income
Tax
+ CRL.M.C. 3016/2015 and Crl. MA 10741/2015
GOYAL GASES P.LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vijay Aggarwal and Mr.
Mudit Jain, Advocates
versus
STATE & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Ravi Nayak, APP for the State
Mr. Puneet Rai, Standing Counsel, Income
Tax
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER (ORAL)
1. A prosecution launched by the second respondent in 1993
alleging offences punishable under Sections 276 C (1) and 277 of
Income Tax Act, 1961 continues to hang fire on the file of the
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) till date, the
petitions at hand, besides others, also being the cause for delay. Three
persons were shown in the array in the criminal complaint case
wherein allegations were made of willful attempt to evade tax -
Section 276 C (1) - and false statement in verification having been
made in the returns and false statement of accounts delivered -
Section 277 - in relation to assessment year 1989-1990, the said
accused including M/s. Goyal Gases P. Ltd. (petitioner in Crl. M.C.
3016/2015) and its managing director, Suresh Chand Goyal (petitioner
in Crl. M.C. 3002/2015) besides Smt. Sudha Jain, described as
director in the aforementioned company, she statedly having since
passed away. The ACMM considered the criminal complaint and the
material filed therewith by the public servant and issued process by his
order dated 27.04.1993. It may be mentioned here that the
summoning order and some of the proceedings recorded in its wake
were challenged by another criminal revision petition (Crl.MC-
1686/2009) which remained pending till date, the petitioners not
having prosecuted it diligently, it having been withdrawn and
dismissed accordingly, by a separate order of even date.
2. The case before the ACMM is being tried as a warrant trial case
based on a complaint and thus the trial court called upon the
complainant to lead pre-charge evidence. The pre-charge evidence
having been led, he proceeded to consider the question as to whether
charge is made out or not. By order dated 23.01.2015, the trial court
has found a case made out for putting the petitioners on trial on the
charge for the aforementioned offences. Formal charge was framed
on 23.01.2015 itself and the pleas of the petitioners were recorded.
3. Aggrieved by the aforementioned order, the petitioners and the
third accused Sudha Jain, since deceased, approached the court of
Sessions invoking its revisional jurisdiction by filing petitions (CR
nos.01-03/2015). The revisoinal court, by a very detailed order,
passed on 15.07.2015 found no merit in the contentions raised and
thus dismissed the challenge to the order framing charge.
4. The petitioners have approached this court seeking to invoke its
inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr. PC to bring yet another
challenge to the order framing charge.
5. Against the above backdrop, question arose as to whether the
petitioner having availed of the remedy of revision should be allowed
to have recourse to the petition at hand as a substitute for virtually a
second revisional challenge or scrutiny which is clearly barred under
Section 397 (3) Cr.P.C.
6. This Court in an almost similar fact-situation, taking note of the
decisions of the Supreme Court reported as Krishnan Vs. Krishnaveni,
(1997) 4 SCC 241; Rajinder Prasad Vs. Bashir, (2001) 8 SCC 522 and
Kailash Verma vs. Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation & Anr.,
(2005) 2 SCC 571 and following similar view taken by a learned
single Judge of this Court in Surender Kumar Jain vs. State & Anr.,
ILR (2012) 3 Del 99 in absence of a special case being made has
earlier declined to interfere by the ruling (dated 03.07.2018) in
Crl.M.C. 164/2018 Ajay Maini vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi &
Ors. in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482
Cr.P.C.
7. There are no special circumstances made out in the case at hand
for the revisional court's view to be disturbed.
8. The petition and the applications filed therewith are dismissed.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
July 30, 2018
yg
