AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Parties through their counsel. Present revision petitions have been preferred by the accused petitioners against the order dated 16.02.2015 passed by Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption) Act, Indore in Special Case No. 09/08 framing charge under section 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and under section 420/34 & 120-B of the I.P.C against Yogendra Kumar Pardhey (CRR No. 566/15) and under section 420, 468and 471 IPC against accused Bharat Chandel and Dinesh Pahwa (CRR No. 570/2015 & CRR No. 571/15).
Necessary facts in short are that Police, Economic Offences Investigation Bureau Unit, Indore registered a case against petitioners and other accused persons on the basis of clues and informations regarding evasion of commercial tax in respect of movements of wood/timber in contravention of provisions of Forest Act also. During investigation it was revealed that the main accused Bharat Chandel and Dinesh Pahwa have obtained registration in Commercial Tax Department on the basis of false informations regarding identity and place of residence etc. After completing investigation, Police filed charge sheet against petitioners and other accused persons containing evidence, allegations of cheating and forgery of documents regarding place of residence of some of the accused persons and also collected the evidence of connivance and corruption in respect of some accused persons who are public servants.
Learned counsel for the petitioner Yogendra Kumar Pardhey submits that petitioner was a public servant working as Assistant Forest Conservator, Indore during the period between 1999-2006 and had acted in good faith and issued NOC and registration to co-accused persons on the basis of papers and documents submitted before him. He further submits that as per rule 22 of Madhya Pradesh Transit (Forest Produce) Rules, 1961, Conservator of Forest is authorized to issue registration after receiving certain fees and in case no objection has been raised by anybody. This registration is issued on yearly basis and petitioner has exercised his power of government servant in good faith, hence in absence of mens rea charge under sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and under sections 420/34 & 120-B IPC is not sustainable in law.
Per contra, learned Govt. Advocate submits that according to rule 17 of the Madhya Pradesh Transit (Forest Produce) Rules 2000, the Divisional Forest Officer is required to verify facts and contents of the application and then only registration is possible.
Learned counsel for the petitioner Dinesh Pahwa submits that matters of tax evasion of commercial tax should not be and cannot be made the basis of prosecution without following prescribed procedures and initiating the safeguards given to the bona fide tax payers. For that purpose special law is there which prevails applicability of the general law and for that purpose special Courts are there, hence no ordinary Court should proceed in the matter for prosecution.
Learned counsel for the petitioner Bharat Chandel submits that at the most it can be a case of evasion of commercial tax which has been given a colour of criminal case in utter contravention of principles of criminal law.
Per contra, learned G.A submits that petitioners are placing their reliance on the registration issued by commercial tax authority, certificate issued by Khadi Gram Udyog Board and orders passed by concerned authorities of Commercial Tax Department those are not all relevant in this matter at this stage.
On perusal of prima facie averments of charge sheet it appears that the crux of the matter is that accused persons have created false and fake books of accounts and submitted fake returns in Commercial Tax Department. False address of residence of Bhopal has been shown. Forest authority also co-operated with them by their inaction and they did not verify the fact which resulted in pecuniary loss to the State Government.
After considering the rival contentions, in our considered opinion, law is settled on the point that order of framing of charge should necessarily be based on the documents found place in the charge sheet. In exceptional case some public documents having no controversy may also be looked into if submitted by the accused. The order of discharge can be passed at the stage of 227 Cr.P.C if the case is found groundless. If crime has been committed and involvement of the accused is prima facie apparent then trial Court is left with no option but to frame the charge. Police has implicated private persons as well as government servants of Forest Department as well as of Commercial Tax Department in this case.
In such a situation whatever has been averred by the petitioners in these petitions would be, at the best, can be held to be a matter of trial. We see no error or illegality in the order of framing of charge against the petitioners.
Petitions stand dismissed for want of merit.