9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Application challenging rejection of discharge plea u/s 482 CrPC against accusation of theft and forgery.
Details of the judgment: The petitioners challenged the order rejecting their discharge plea in a case involving the theft of F forms from the office of the Assistant Commissioner, Sales Tax, Chaibasa. The case was registered under various sections of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners, senior officers of a company, were accused of using stolen forms. The petitioners contended that the prosecution failed to establish their involvement in the alleged offences of theft or forgery. They argued that the company, which used the forms, was not made an accused despite the petitioners not being directly responsible for the day-to-day affairs of the business. The petitioners also raised the issue of the applicability of the Central Sales Tax Act, claiming that the prosecution under general law was impermissible due to the special provisions of the Act. The court examined Section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act, which deals with the burden of proof in cases of goods transfer. It noted that the Act required the dealer to furnish F forms, and failure to do so could lead to penalties under Section 10A of the Act. The prosecution alleged that the stolen forms were used to claim exemption from sales tax, implicating the petitioners. However, the court found that the petitioners were being prosecuted under general law instead of the specific provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, which was not permissible under Section 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court emphasized that the petitioners could not be prosecuted under general law for offences falling within the purview of the Central Sales Tax Act. It highlighted the principle that vicarious liability cannot be a basis for prosecution unless specifically provided for in the law. Citing relevant case law, the court concluded that the trial court and the revisional court erred in not discharging the petitioners from the accusation. Consequently, the court set aside the orders and discharged the petitioners from the case, finding the refusal to discharge them as illegal. In conclusion, the court allowed the application challenging the rejection of the discharge plea, thereby discharging the petitioners from the case.
|
