9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 50X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the punishment of the offender twice for the offence. The same set of facts, in conceivable cases, can constitute offences under two different laws. An act or an omission can amount to and constitute an offence under the IPC and at the same time, an offence under any other law - This Court however, finds that the said judgments particularly the Supreme Court s judgments have not directly dealt with the issue where act constitutes offence under two enactments particularly in reference to Section 26 of General Clauses Act. However, Hon ble the Supreme Court has specifically dealt with the said issue on several occasions in some other cases. Hon ble Supreme Court in TS BALIAH VERSUS TS RANGACHARI, INCOME-TAX OFFICER, CENTRAL CIRCLE VI, MADRAS [ 1968 (12) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT] , held that where an act or an omission constitutes an offence under two enactments, the offender may be prosecuted and punished under either or both enactments but shall not be liable to be punished twice for the same offence. In STATE OF RAJASTHAN VERSUS HAT SINGH ORS. [ 2003 (1) TMI 723 - SUPREME COURT] Hon ble Apex Court discussed the doctrine of double jeopardy and section 26 of the General Clauses Act t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se, against Sumit Kumar, Sammy Dhiman, Mandeep Dhiman, Sudhir Kumar Verma, Mukesh Gautam, Karan Kumar, Ravi Kaushal and Kushal Kumar alleging therein that the accused, in connivance with each other, had created fake forms and had forged and fabricated fake bills showing inter se transactions of sales and purchases and had uploaded the same on the portal of GST and had further sold the bills to the manufacturing firms at Mandi Gobindgarh and Ludhiana and had earned commission from the said firms and had thus caused loss to the Government to the tune of about Rs.25 crores by way of getting Input Tax Credit . 3. It is further the case of prosecution that accused Sammy Dhiman was arrested on 31.10.2023 and upon being interrogated, he disclosed that Avtarjit Singh, Komal Sharma had masterminded the fraud. He further disclosed that Mandeep Singh (petitioner) had created a false firm at Faridabad under the name and style of Shree Radha Krishan Steels, Faridabad and after obtaining Excise and VAT number had converted the same into GST. It is further alleged that in the same manner Mandeep Singh along with Avtarjit Singh, Komal Sharma, Jatinder Menro had created 4 different firms at Delhi a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 6 (2) (b) of Punjab GST Act as per which proceedings against an accused for a specific instance of defaut/offence can be initiated under one of these two Acts only i.e either under Central GST Act 2017 or under Punjab GST Act 2017 and not parallelly under both the Acts . 8. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners are now sought to be arrested after almost 5 years apparently under the garb of offences punishable under the IPC which have been added in the month of November, 2023, which is nothing, but a misuse of the said provision particularly when the CGST Act and PGST Act are complete codes in themselves and there are specific provisions with regard to commission of offences by way of falsifying and forging record including bills etc. and in respect of which imprisonment may extend upto 5 years. 9. It has thus, been submitted that when an act of accused constitutes an offence under a special enactment and as well as under IPC, it is the provisions of the special enactment only which will apply and application of provisions of IPC shall stand excluded. 10. Learned counsel in order to hammer forth his aforesaid submissions places reliance upon Sharat Babu Digumarti V ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... GST would also attracted. Section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which is a specific provision for such an eventualty reads as under : Provisions as to offences punishable under two or more enactments - Where an act or omission constitutes an offence under two or more enactments, then the offender shall be liable to be prosecuted and punished under either or any of those enactments, but shall not be liable to be punished twice for the same offence. 14. A perusal of the above referred provisions suggests that there is no absolute bar to try an offender under two different enactments, but the bar is only to the punishment of the offender twice for the offence. The same set of facts, in conceivable cases, can constitute offences under two different laws. An act or an omission can amount to and constitute an offence under the IPC and at the same time, an offence under any other law. This Court has gone through the judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioners as noted in para No. 10. This Court however, finds that the said judgments particularly the Supreme Court s judgments have not directly dealt with the issue where act constitutes offence under two enactments particu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accused can be let off with mere penalty. However, since, this Court is presently seized of a petition for grant of anticipatory bail only, there is no need to delve deeper in the legal issue arising out in Clause 26 of General Clauses Act. 20. Admittedly, the petitioners have also been proceeded in a complaint filed against them under Section 132 of CGST Act, which is pending at Ludhiana wherein petitioner-Jatinder Menro remained in custody for 1 year and 8 months and petitioner-Mandeep Singh remained behind bars for about 1 year. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners were not on the run and had associated themselves with the authorities concerned. However, the petitioners now apprehend their arrest on account alleged disclosure statement dated 2.11.2013 by Sammy Dhiman and addition of offences punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471 IPC. It is now pursuant to recording of said disclosure statement that the petitioners came to be nominated as accused in the present FIR on 02.11.2023. 21. Having regard to the aforestated position wherein it is prima facie found that the allegations as in the complaint under Section 132 of CGST Act and in the FIR are more or less over ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
