Gujarat High Court
M/S Gopal Glass Works Ltd Thro. Managing ... vs Union Of India on 17 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/15613/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025
undefined
Reserved On : 03/11/2025
Pronounced On : 17/11/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET
ASIDE FIR/ORDER) NO. 15613 of 2015
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI Sd/-
=====================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
Yes
=====================================================
M/S GOPAL GLASS WORKS LTD THRO. MANAGING DIRECTOR
& ORS.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
=====================================================
Appearance:
MR. BHADRISH S RAJU(6676) for the Applicant(s) No.
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
MS HARDIKA VYAS(11450) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR CHINTAN H. DAVE, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 2
=====================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
CAV JUDGMENT
1. The instant petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the
Code"), by the petitioners praying to quash and set aside the
Criminal Complaint bearing Nos. C.C. No. 1686 of 2013
registered with Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kadi (Former C.C.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/15613/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025
undefined
No.1524 of 1994) by quashing issuance of the summons/process
in a complaint, for offences under Sections 468 and 120B of the
Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "IPC") read with
Section 9 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter
referred to as the "Act of 1944").
2. By way of the petition, the following relief has been prayed
by the petitioners:-
"7. (a) To allow this petition,
(b) To issue appropriate writ, order or direction quashing
and setting aside the impugned Complaint (Annexure A)
being Criminal Case no. 1686/2013 registered with the
Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kadi (earlier CC no
1524/1994 in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Mehsana) along with the summons dated 12.03.2015 issued
to the petitioners and all further proceedings therein.
(c) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this
petition, to stay further proceedings of the impugned
Complaint (at Annexure A) being Criminal Case no.
1686/2013 registered with the Court of Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Kadi (earlier CC no. 1524/1994 in the Court of
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mehsana);
(d) To pass any other and further orders as may be
deemed fit and proper to this Hon'ble Court."
3. The facts, in nutshell, required to decide the issue are as
under:-
3.1 The petitioner No.1 is a private limited company
incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged,
inter alia, in the manufacturing of figured and rolled glass of
Tariff Item 23A of erstwhile schedule to the "Act of 1944", till
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/15613/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025
undefined
27.2.1986 and thereafter, under Chapter 70 of First the
Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Petitioner
No.2 is the Chairman from 24.07.1978, petitioner No.6 is
Managing Director of Petitioner No.1 from 01.01.2005, and
petitioner Nos.3, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 were the Directors of the
petitioner No.1 company at the relevant point of time except
petitioner No.4, who was neither a Shareholder nor Employee of
the company at the relevant point of time. He became Director of
the Petitioner No.1 on 27.12.2011.
3.2 That it is the case of respondent Nos.1 and 3 that, on
11.05.1985, the officers of Central Excise Department
(Preventive Wing) H.Q., Ahmedabad, searched the factory
premises of the petitioners and allegedly found that the
petitioners were writing different thickness in their packaging
slips than the thickness mentioned in the production record and
on further inquiry, it was further found that no measuring
apparatus was used since last month as it was sent for repairs.
3.3 That the then Collector of Central Excise & Customs,
Ahmedabad, vide his order dated 15.02.1990, held that the
petitioners have evaded duty of Rs.25,79,685.35/- being the
duty on the amount realised by the way of contingency bills
aggregating to Rs.3,31,062.78/- from March, 1984 to May, 1984
and the said duty was ordered to be recovered under proviso to
sub-section (1) of the then Section 11-A of the "Act of 1944". He
further confiscated the goods and imposed fine of Rs. 10,000/-
in lieu of confiscation and imposed Rs. 5,00,000/- as penalty
under Rule 173Q of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944.
The then Collector of Central Excise held that the petitioners by
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/15613/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025
undefined
not declaring true thickness of the glass suppressed the
assessable value in the price list and committed fraud, miss-
declaration and suppression of facts, in order to evade payment
of duty to cheat government.
3.4 That being aggrieved by the said order dated 15.2.1990,
the petitioner filled an appeal to the Customs, Excise and Gold
Control Appellate Tribunal (now Customs, Excise and Service
Tax Appellate Tribunal) Principal Bench, New Delhi.
3.5 That the Appellate Tribunal, initially granting stay on
05.12.1990, vide its order dated 18.02.1995 set aside the said
order dated 15.02.1990 and remanded the proceedings to the
then Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad for reconsideration.
3.6 That pursuant to the said final order of the Appellate
Tribunal, the Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs,
Ahmedabad, vide his order dated 30.09.1997 confirmed the
demand of Rs.3,31,062.78/-for mis-declaration of thickness and
Rs.25,79,658.35/- as additional consideration towards
contingency charges and imposed penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/-.
That, aggrieved by the said order of the Office of Commissioner,
Central Excise and Customs, Ahmedabad, the petitioner No. 1
filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal at Mumbai on
22.01.1998.
3.7 That the Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai, by its order dated
30.04.1998 ordered to deposit Rs. 10,00,000/- under Section
35F of "Act of 1944", which was deposited by the petitioners in
two instalments viz. Rs.5,00,000/- on 25.05.1998 and
Rs.5,00,000/- on 24.08.1998.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/15613/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025
undefined
3.8 That pending the hearing of the said appeal, a scheme
known as 'Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998', was introduced
by the Government. The scheme was in force between
01.09.1998 and 31.01.1999. Briefly, the scheme permitted the
settlement of "tax arrears", as defined in Section 87(m) of the
Finance Act. The said scheme was mainly in relation to indirect
tax enactment mainly provided for the amount of duties
(including drawback of duty, credit of duty or any amount
representing duty), cesses, interest, fine or penalty determined
as due or payable under that enactment as on the 31.03.1998
but remaining unpaid as on the date of making a declaration
under Section 88.
3.9 That the petitioners in fact received the details of the
scheme in question from the concerned Commissioner and the
petitioners, with a view to prevent further litigation and to settle
the dispute, applied under the said scheme by filing declaration
in Form 18 on 30.12.1998 to settle the arrears of the tax.
3.10 That the Office of the Commissioner of Central Excise,
Ahmedabad, issued certificate dated 19.02.1999 in Form 2B to
the petitioners under Section 90(1) of the said Finance Act
determining the Rs.9,55,361/- payable by the Petitioners under
scheme which were to be paid within 30 days from 19.02.1999.
The petitioners deposited, on 16.03.1999, Rs.9,55,361/-vide
Challan No.139 in Bank of Baroda, Ahmedabad. The said
amount was deposited within time prescribed in the said
certificate date.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/15613/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025
undefined
3.11 That the petitioners were thereafter issued certificate dated
30.06.1999, by the office of Commissioner of Central Excise,
Ahmedabad, certifying the full and final settlement of tax arrears
of the petitioner No.1 under section 90(2) and Section 91 of the
Finance (No.2) Act, 1998 under the 'Kar Vivad Samadhan
Scheme, 1998' in Form-3 dated 30.06.1999. The Commissioner
of Central Excise having jurisdiction over the petitioners' factory
granted immunity, subject to the provisions contained in the
scheme, from instituting any proceedings for prosecution for any
offence under "Act of 1944" or from the imposition of penalty
under the said Act, in respect of the matters covered by the
present petitioners.
3.12 That in view of the petitioners having paid the tax arrears
under 'Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998', the Appellate
Tribunal, vide its order dated 10.02.2004, after recording that
the petitioner No.1 has obtained satisfaction under provisions of
'Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998', held that the appeal filed
by the petitioner No. 1 against the order of the Commissioner of
Central Excise does not survive and was dismissed for statistical
purposes.
3.13 That after more than a decade of the abovementioned
events, in 2015, the petitioners were shocked and surprised to
receive the summons issued to them in C.C. No.1686/2013,
which was not known to the petitioners to have been originally
filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mehsana in 1994,
which was subsequently transferred to the Court of Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Kadi, on 01.01.2013 and registered as C.C.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/15613/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025
undefined
No.1686/2013. The summons were issued on 12.03.2015 and
was for the first time served upon only on petitioner No. 1.
3.14 That the the original Accused Nos.3, 6, 8 have expired,
and by the time the summons dated 12.03.2015 was served
upon the petitioner No. 1 for the first time on 19.04.2015, which
was returnable on 19.04.2015, the petitioner No. 1 appeared
before the Hon'ble Court on 21.04.2015 by way of this petition.
4. Mr. Bhadrish S. Raju, appearing for the petitioners, made
two-fold submissions.
4.1 He firstly submitted that among the petitioners, petitioner
No.1 is M/s. Gopal Glass Works Ltd., petitioner No.2 is the MD
and rest of the petitioners are the Directors of the Gopal Vilas
Private Limited. The company is mainly engaged in
manufacturing of figured and rolled glass sheets.
4.2 He has further submitted that the officers of the Central
Excise Department's (Preventive Wing) visited the unit on
11.05.1985 and carried out the various checks at the premises
of the factory and on verification, they found that the petitioners
were writing different thickness in their packaging slips as
compared to the thickness mentioned in the production record.
On inquiry, it was learnt that the company had no measuring
apparatus. Therefore, he would submit that some discrepancy
was found in the thickness of the figure and rolled glasses than
what is mentioned in the production report.
4.3 Learned Advocate Mr. Bhadrish S. Raju referred to the
private complaint, which is at Annexure-A, and submitted that
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/15613/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025
undefined
the difference of thickness is entirely stated in schedule on page
2 of the said complaint.
4.4 He would further submit that the Collector of Central
Excise and Customs, Ahmedabad by his order dated 15.02.1990
held that the petitioner - Company and its Directors have evaded
the excise duty of Rs.25,79,685.35/-. The Collector of Central
Excise passed such order along with the order of confiscation
and penalty. The Collector believed that the petitioners have
suppressed the accessible value in the price list by misdeclaring
the thickness of the glass.
4.5 He would further submit that being aggrieved by the order
of the Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Ahmedabad, the
petitioners have filed appeal in the Customs, Excise and Gold
Control Appellate Tribunal. The appellate Tribunal, after hearing
both the parties, partly set aside the order of the Collector and
remanded the proceedings to be decided afresh, as per the order
at Annexure-D(Colly.) to the petition.
4.6 He would further submit that, in a remanded matter, the
Collector again reiterated his previous decision and believed that
the excise duty in the tune of Rs.25,79,685.35/- has been
evaded. Therefore, the Collector has reconfirmed and passed his
earlier order again.
4.7 Aggrieved by the said order by the Office of Commissioner
of Customs, Ahmedabad (Collector), DNR appeal was preferred
before the Appellate Tribunal. Learned advocate submitted that
during the pendency of the appeal, the Government has floated a
scheme known as 'Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998' and the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/15613/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025
undefined
scheme was permitting settlement of the tax arrears and
ultimately, the petitioner company has settled the tax arrears
and paid the tax, as fixed, and as per the conditions of the Kar
Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998, has also withdrawn his appeal
from the appellate Tribunal.
4.8 Learned advocate Mr. Bhadrish S. Raju, in the aforesaid
factual backdrop, submitted that the impugned complaint filed
by the respondent No.3, essentially, is based upon the civil
dispute raised between the party in regard to evasion of tax duty,
but since petitioners have opted to pay the tax under the Kar
Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998, petitioners should be given
immunity from being prosecuted and yet, private complaint is
filed in derogation of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998.
Therefore, while relying upon the judgement in the case of Hira
Lal Hari Lal Bhagwati v. CBI, New Delhi, reported in (2003) 5
SCC 257, learned advocate submits that, as far as offence under
Section 9 of the "Act of 1944" is concerned, it is to be believed
that petitioners have got immunity from being prosecuted as
they entered into the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, and paid tax
as assessed.
4.9 In so far as offence under Sections 468 and 120B of the
"IPC" is concerned it is submitted by the learned advocate Mr.
Bhadrish S. Raju that maintaining a log sheet in the
manufacturing unit mentioning different thickness than the
thickness of the glass manufactured does not fall within the
realm or definition of the forged document, in support of his
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/15613/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025
undefined
argument, he referred to the judgement in the case of
Mohammed Ibrahim v. State of Bihar, reported in 2009 (8)
SCC 751.
4.10 Lastly, learned advocate Mr. Bhadrish S. Raju submitted
that a bare reading of the private complaint indicates that it does
not make any allegations of the personal involvement of the
petitioners Nos. 3 to 9. It is further submitted that the
petitioners Nos. 3 to 9 are the Directors and in absence of any
averments as regards to their personal involvement in the
commission of the offence, they are not required to be
prosecuted for the act and misdeed done by the company.
Therefore, he submitted that the petitioners Nos. 3 to 9 should
not stand for the trial.
Mainly on the above submissions, learned advocate Mr.
Bhadrish S. Raju submitted that the complaint be quashed
along with the issuance of the process in the Criminal Case and
consequentially, to dismiss the Criminal Case against the
petitioners.
5. Ms. Hardika Vyas, learned advocate appearing for the
Central Execise Department, would submit that the Criminal
Case against the petitioners for the offence under Sections 468
and 120B of the "IPC" read with Section 9 of the "Act of 1944"
was filed in the year 1994, much prior to launching of the Kar
Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998. Therefore, petitioners cannot
claim any immunity from the prosecution, retrospectively. She
refers to the Annexure-F and Annexure-G to submit that none of
the conditions stated therein are permitting to apply for the Kar
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/15613/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025
undefined
Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998, retrospectively. She further
submits that the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 granted
immunity from instituting any proceedings for the prosecution
for any offence under any direct tax or indirect tax from the date
of the scheme, which came into force from the first day of
September, 1998. Therefore, she submitted that the prosecution,
which is launched much prior to Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme
came into force, cannot be ground to quash complaint, on the
reason that the petitioners have paid the arrears of tax.
Upon the aforesaid submissions, learned advocate Ms.
Vyas submits to dismiss this petition.
6. Learned APP Mr. Chintan H. Dave, adopted the arguments
of learned advocate Ms. Vyas and in addition thereto, he
submitted that even the offence under Section 468 of the "IPC" is
prima-facie made out, as petitioner company has made a false
declaration before the Government authority to evade the tax.
Thus, putting up a false declaration before the taxing authority
itself is attributing the offence, and therefore, it cannot be said
that the offence under Section 468 of the "IPC" is not made out.
Thus, he submitted to dismiss the petition.
7. I have heard learned advocate Mr. Bhadrish S. Raju for the
petitioners, learned advocate Ms. Hardika Vyas for the Central
Execise Department and learned APP Mr. Chintan H. Dave for
the State.
7.1 This Court has paid the anxious thoughts to the rival
submissions made by the learned advocates for both the sides.
Adverting to the arguments of learned advocate Mr. Bhadrish S.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/15613/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025
undefined
Raju, the only appealing argument is that the petitioners Nos. 3
to 9, being the Directors of M/s. Gopal Glass Works Ltd. cannot
be prosecuted without making any allegations of their personal
involvement in the commission of the offence, as principle of
Vicarious Liability is unknown to the criminal jurisprudence. In
this regard, examining the averments made in the Criminal
Complaint at Annexure-A on page 3, except the name of
company and MD, no role of the other petitioners are mentioned
and there are no allegations of their personal involvement are
levelled in the petition. In Sanjay Dutt & Ors. v. The State of
Haryana & Anr., reported in 2025 INSC 34, the Supreme
Court discussed the principle of Vicarious Liability and whether
it applies to the criminal prosecution, relevant para 12 and 13
are reproduced as under:-
"12. At the same time, wherever by a legal fiction the
principle of vicarious liability is attracted and a person who
is otherwise not personally involved in the commission of an
offence is made liable for the same, it has to be specifically
provided in the statute concerned. When it comes to penal
provisions, vicarious liability of the managing director and
director would arise provided any provision exists in that
behalf in the statute. Even where such provision for
fastening vicarious liability exists, it does not mean that any
and all directors of the company would be automatically
liable for any contravention of such statute. Vicarious
Liability would arise only if there are specific and
substantiated allegations attributing a particular role or
conduct to such director, sufficient enough to attract the
provisions constituting vicarious liability and by extension
the offence itself.
13. It is the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence
that there is no vicarious liability unless the statute
specifically provides so. Thus, an individual who has
perpetrated the commission of an offence on behalf of a
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/15613/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025
undefined
company can be made an accused, if the statute provides for
such liability and if there is sufficient evidence of his active
role coupled with criminal intent. The primary responsibility
is on the complainant to make specific averments as are
required under the law in the complaint so as to make the
accused vicariously liable. For fastening criminal liability on
an officer of a company, there is no presumption that every
officer of a company knows about the transaction in
question."
8. Yet in another judgment in the case of Maharashtra State
Electricity Distribution Company Limited and Anr. v. Datar
Switchgear Limited and Ors., reported in (2010) 10 SCC 479,
wherein the Chairman of the Maharashtra State Electricity
Board was made an accused for the offence under Sections 192
and 199 respectively read with Section 34 of the "IPC", the Apex
Court in para 30 held as under:-
"30. It is trite law that wherever by a legal fiction the
principle of vicarious liability is attracted and a person who
is otherwise not personally involved in the commission of an
offence is made liable for the same, it has to be specifically
provided in the statute concerned. In our opinion, neither
Section 192 IPC nor Section 199 IPC incorporate the principle
of vicarious liability, and therefore, it was incumbent on the
complainant to specifically aver the role of each of the
accused in the complaint. It would be profitable to extract
the following observations made in S.K. Alagh: (SCC p.667,
para 19)
'19. As, admittedly, drafts were drawn in the name of the
company, even if the appellant was its Managing
Director, he cannot be said to have committed an offence
under Section 406 of the Penal Code. If and when a
statute contemplates creation of such a legal fiction, it
provides specifically therefor. In absence of any provision
laid down under the statute, a Director of a company or
an employee cannot be held to be vicariously liable for
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/15613/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025
undefined
any offence committed by the company itself.' (Emphasis
supplied)"
9. In the aforesaid circumstances, prosecution in order to
prosecute the Directors of the Company requires to prove their
active personal involvement or knowledge in the offence or a
statutory provision that imposes liability upon them. The
criminal liability cannot be based on designation alone, but has
to be on the role they played in the company's affairs, as such
the direct personal involvement is needed. Since the companies
are distinct legal entities separate from their Directors and
shareholders, plethora of judgments have consistently upheld
the Doctrine of Separate Legal Personality, except if specific
statutory provision or circumstances, warrant lifting the
corporate veil. The principle ensures that the liability for
corporate acts remain confined to the companies unless the
Director is directly implicated by the statute or personal
involvement. Thus, there is a need for statutory clarity and
evidentiary recourse when criminal liability is attributed to the
Directors.
10. In Pooja Ravinder Devidasani v. State of Maharashtra
and others, reported in 2014 (16) SCC 1, the Apex Court
asserted that only those persons, who were in charge and
responsible for the conduct of the business of the company at
the time of commission of offence will be liable for criminal
action. In the aforesaid circumstances, since the necessary
averments in the complaint is missing, which may prima-facie
establish the personal involvement of the petitioners of any
specific statutory provision, which says that the Director can be
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/15613/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025
undefined
held liable for the Company's action, the prosecution against the
petitioner Nos. 3 to 9 launched or started on the principle of
Vicarious Liability is legally not permissible.
11. As far as submission of learned advocate Mr. Bhadrish S.
Raju that, petitioners have accepted the Kar Vivad Samadhan
Scheme, 1998 and paid the arrears of tax by foregoing their right
to appeal. Hence, petitioners should not be prosecuted on the
same facts are concerned, let me note that the Kar Vivad
Samadhan Scheme, 1998 provides immunity to initiate
prosecution only under direct tax or indirect tax, immunity is
not provided for any other offences. Apt to note that immunity is
provided from institution of fresh Criminal Case.
In para 4.15 of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998, it
is stated as under:-
"4.15 The scheme shall not be applicable in Customs and
Excise Cases involving the following categories of cases /
persons:
a) in a case where prosecution for any offence
punishable under any provisions of any indirect tax
enactment has been instituted on or before the date of filing
of the declaration under Section 88 in respect of any tax
arrear in respect of such case under such indirect tax
enactment.
b) in a case where show cause notice or a notice of
demand under any indirect tax enactment has not been
issued.
c) in a case where no appeal or reference or writ petition
is admitted and pending before any appellate authority or
High Court or the Supreme Court or no application for
revision is pending before the Central Govt. on the date of
declaration made under Section 88.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/15613/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025
undefined
d) to any person in respect of whom an order of detention
has been made under COFEPOSA Act, 74 subject to certain
conditions about order of detention being satisfied,
d) to certain other categories of persons prosecuted for
offence punishable under IPC, FERA, 73, NDPS Act, 85,
TADA, 87, Prevention of Corruption Act 88 etc. (Please see
Section 95 for details)"
12. Chapter IV of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 and
Section 89 states that, this Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998
came into force on the 1st day of September, 1998. Section 94
thereof reads as under:-
"94. The designated authority shall, subject to the
conditions provided in section 93, grant immunity from
instituting any proceeding for prosecution for any offence
under any direct tax enact- ment or indirect tax enactment,
or from the imposition of penalty under any of such
enactments, in respect of matters covered in the declaration
under section 91."
13. Thus, it is abundantly clear that this Kar Vivad Samadhan
Scheme, 1998 operates prospectively and not retrospectively. It
provides the immunity from instituting any proceedings for
prosecution for any offence under the direct tax or indirect tax
enactment.
14. Recollecting the facts, the prosecution against the M/s.
Gopal Glass Works Ltd. and its MD has been launched in the
year 1994. The Criminal Case is filed on 07.04.1994. It was
much prior to launching of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme,
1998. Therefore, merely petitioner accepted the Kar Vivad
Samadhan Scheme, 1998 and paid the tax, for which the
prosecution has been launched against him in priori, it cannot
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/15613/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025
undefined
be said that petitioners have been given a immunity from the
prosecution, which is initiated much prior to the launching of
the scheme. Therefore, there is no substance in the submission
of the learned advocate Mr. Bhadrish S. Raju.
15. A judgment in the case of Hira Lal Hari Lal Bhagwati
(Supra) would not apply in the facts of the case. In that case,
after petitioner entered into compromise under the Kar Vivad
Samadhan Scheme, 1998 and paid the arrears of tax, the
prosecution was launched thereafter. In the entire
circumstances, the Honourable Supreme Court quashed the
complaint as the immunity was permitted under the Kar Vivad
Samadhan Scheme, 1998.
16. Lastly, the submission that no offence under Section 468
of the "IPC" is made out as recording false particulars in log
book, which belongs to the petitioners does not attract the term
'forged documents', I am totally not impressed by such
submission, as petitioner has made a declaration before the tax
authority and claimed thickness of the glass to claim a
particular tax regime and evaded the tax duty, and therefore,
prima-facie making of false declaration before Government
authority to claim the benefit attracts the definition of 'forged
documents', as defined under Section 464 of the "IPC". In view of
this reason, this submission is also not accepted.
17. For the foregoing reasons, I pass the following order:-
i) The petition is allowed qua petitioner Nos.3 to 9, namely
petitioner No.3 - Devang Krishnavadan Taktawala, petitioner
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/15613/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025
undefined
No.4 - Kalpesh Dhirajlal Sheth, petitioner No.5 - Shah
Harishchandra Keshavlal, petitioner No.6 - Mayurbhai Jayantilal
Shah, petitioner No.7 - Husaeni Akbarali Arsiwala, petitioner
No.8 - Fakhruddin Jivaji Vakharia, petitioner No.9 - Nanavati
Bakul Chandrakant. Accordingly, the prior issuance of the
summons in private complaint as well as the private complaint
being C.C. No. 1686 of 2013 registered with Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Kadi (Former C.C. No.1524 of 1994) is hereby
quashed and set aside qua them along with all other
consequential proceedings.
ii) The petition qua petitioner No.1 - M/s. Gopal Glass Works
Ltd. and petitioner No.2 - its MD, namely Jayantilal Jethalal
Shah is dismissed.
Direct service is permitted.
Sd/-
(J. C. DOSHI, J.)
Raj
