9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (10) TMI 203 - HC - GSTGrant of default bail - alleged violation of Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 - charge-sheet filed within 60 days or not - offence committed under Sections 132(1)(b) and (c) of the Act of 2017 - cognizable offence or not - GST Officers are police officers or not - HELD THAT - The object of the provisions of Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. is that State authority should not take any malafide belated action against accused persons. Right of the accused is an integral part of personal liberty, as per the provisions and is an indefeasible link to safeguard under Article 21 of the Constitution of India - it is abundantly clear that default bail is indefensible right of the petitioner. The same cannot be violated by prosecution. On above legal provisions of law and facts projected by the petitioners, the case has to be examined by this Court whether the petitioners are entitled to get default bail as provided in Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. on count of non filing of final report within 60 days or not. The GST officers are not the police officers, therefore, they are not required to submit final report as envisaged in Section 173 of Cr.P.C. It is quite clear that complaint has been filed within 60 days of their arrest which is within the time prescribed for filing of complaint to entitle or disentitle the accused persons for default bail - the writ petition (criminal) is dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the order rejecting the application for default bail under Section 167 Cr.P.C. 2. Whether the complaint filed by the GST authorities within 60 days is sufficient compliance with Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. 3. The nature of the GST officers' authority and their role in filing a complaint versus a charge-sheet. Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of the order rejecting the application for default bail under Section 167 Cr.P.C.: The petitioners challenged the order dated 26.06.2021 passed by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, which affirmed the Chief Judicial Magistrate's order rejecting their application for default bail under Section 167 Cr.P.C. The petitioners argued that since the charge-sheet was not filed within 60 days, they were entitled to default bail. The court examined the provisions of Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., emphasizing that default bail is an integral part of personal liberty and an indefeasible right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The court referred to the Supreme Court judgment in M. Ravindran vs Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, which reiterated the right to default bail if the charge-sheet is not filed within the prescribed period. 2. Whether the complaint filed by the GST authorities within 60 days is sufficient compliance with Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.: The petitioners argued that the complaint filed by the Senior Intelligence Officer of GST was not maintainable as it did not name any natural person and was not a charge-sheet as required under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. The court noted that the complaint was filed on the 59th day after the petitioners' arrest, which was within the 60-day period prescribed for filing a charge-sheet. The court concluded that the filing of the complaint within 60 days constituted sufficient compliance with Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., thereby disentitling the petitioners from default bail. 3. The nature of the GST officers' authority and their role in filing a complaint versus a charge-sheet: The court examined the relevant provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, particularly Sections 69, 70, and 132, which outline the powers of GST officers to arrest and summon individuals. The court highlighted that GST officers are not police officers and are not required to submit a final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. Instead, they are authorized to file a complaint under Section 190(1)(a) Cr.P.C. The court referred to the Supreme Court judgments in Directorate of Enforcement vs Deepak Mahajan and Badaku Joti Savant vs State of Mysore, which clarified that officers under special Acts like the GST Act can file complaints but are not police officers who file charge-sheets. The court also cited the Telangana High Court's decision in P.V. Ramana Reddy vs Union of India, which was upheld by the Supreme Court, confirming that GST officers are not police officers and can file complaints under Section 190(1)(a) Cr.P.C. Conclusion: The court concluded that the complaint filed by the GST authorities within 60 days was valid and constituted sufficient compliance with Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. Consequently, the petitioners were not entitled to default bail. The writ petition challenging the orders of the 5th Additional Sessions Judge and the Chief Judicial Magistrate was dismissed.
|
