On 29 November 2022, the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case titled Deepak Kumar v. state of Punjab comprising of Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi reiterates that a well-settled proposition of law that if a special provision has been made qua a particular subject, the said subject is excluded from the general provisions.

FACTS OF THE CASE

Police party was on patrolling duty and Nakabandi, a secret informer gave information that an oil truck which was being driven by Narinder Singh, being hand in glove with his employers was bringing furnace oil made from tyres from Haryana and using secret/abandoned passages for the purposes of entry into Punjab in order to evade tax, was committing the offence of cheating. Thus, by cheating the Government in evading tax, they were doing illegal acts. Based on the said information, the present FIR came to be registered.

Pursuant to the registration of the FIR, Narinder Singh- Truck Driver was arrested. During the course of investigation Narinder Singh disclosed that he used to obtain bills etc. of the firm of the petitioner who was in connivance with them. After completion of investigation, the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented before the concerned Court.

PETITIONER CONTENTIONS

The Petitioner in its submissions contends before the Court that:

  1. the aforesaid FIR and consequential proceedings contends that no offence under the IPC was made out.
  2. even if the allegations as levelled in the FIR were taken to be true, no criminal offence could be said to be made out, since if anybody enters into the State of Punjab from any other State through an unauthorised passage to evade tax, then only penal provisions of penalty etc. are provided under the VAT Act and that too if the person was apprehended at the spot along with the goods. At best, it was a case of civil nature as was provided under the Punjab VAT Act. Even otherwise, the petitioner was not arrested at the spot and the allegations against him are that he was in connivance with the arrested accused Narinder Singh.
  3. As per the provisions of the Act, a person without documents or with no genuine documents carrying the articles in the goods vehicle is liable to be punished with penalty of 30% of the value of the goods.

RESPONDENT SUBMISSIONS

The Court in its Observation relying upon the various Judgments observes that:

  1. there is no provision for registration of an FIR in such like matters of alleged evasion of tax.
  2. The provisions of the Act only provide for mandatory penalty.
  3. It is well-settled proposition of law that if a special provision has been made qua a particular subject (in the present case Value Added Tax), the said subject is excluded from the general provisions (in the present case Indian Penal Code).
  4. Since the provisions of the VAT Act do not provide for the registration of the FIR and the said Act is a Code in itself, the provisions of the IPC also cannot be invoked.
  5. Therefore, quite apparently an FIR could not have been registered against a person who was said to have evaded tax.

Therefore the High court allows the Quashing Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and quashes the FIR registered under Sections 420/120-B IPC and Section 4 of Punjab Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 2000 at Police Station City-II Mansa, the report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com:

Picture Source :

 
Ansh