- (1.) ON 4-3-92 on the basis of a written complaint drawn by the Inspector of Entry Tax Bureau of Investigation, the Officer- in- charge, Polba P. S. recorded a First Information Report in respect of offences punishable under Section 24 (l) (a) (b) of TEGMA Act, 1972 and Sections 468/471/120b 1. P. C. against M/s. Pandey Octroi Service of hossenabad and others. The allegation in, the written complaint on the basis of which the said F. I. R. was drawn being F. I. R. no. 42/92 is that on receipt of a secret information that some persons working under the name and style of m/s. Pandey Octroi Service as Clearing Agent at Hossenabad Entry Tax Road check post evaded payment of entry tax on the entry of specified goods belonging to M/s. Star Iron works Pvt. Ltd. of Sheakespeare Sarani, Calcutta by using forged entry tax money receipt, the Inspector of Entry Tax Bureau of investigation seized the entry tax money receipt in Form- V bearing serial no. AM-645780 dated 23-4-91 for Rs. 7792/- purportedly issued from Hossenabad Entry Tax Road Check post along with carbon copy of the Entry Tax declaration Form- IV dated 23-4-91 from the custody of Mr. C. M. Agarwal (the petitioner no. 3 herein), accountant of M/s. Star Iron Works Pvt. Ltd. on 28-10-91 under section 22 (f) of the Taxes on Entry of Goods into Calcutta metropolitan Area Act (TEGMA Act, for short) and also seized the Bill, consignment Note and Inspection/testing and Rejection Note for the specified goods against which the said forged Form V was used from the custody of Shri dilip Dalmia (the petitioner no. 2 herein) son of Mr. K. P. Dalmia, Managing director of M/s. Star Iron Works on 26-9-91 under the said section. It is also alleged in the said complaint that the office copy of Form V, Book No. 3348 of hossenabad Entry Tax Road Check post containing triplicate copies of Form V nos. AM-645751 to AM-645800 along with relevant documents was forwarded to the office of the Complaint Inspector by the Entry Tax Officer. Hossenabad check post and the triplicate copies of Form V no. AM-645780 was verified from the said Form V Book no. 3348 and it transpired that no deposit of entry tax of Rs. 7792/- on account of M/s. Star Iron Works had been made on 23-4-91. It is stated in the said complaint that in view of the facts stated above, it appears that some persons working under the guise of M/s. Pandey Octroi service 'and others' have committed a criminal offence of forgery and cheating under the relevant provisions of I. P. C. and also an offence under section 24 (l) (a) and 24 (l) (b) of the TEGMA Act, 1972. The police look up investigation on the F. I. R. recorded on the basis of the said complaint. M/s. Star Iron Works pvt. Ltd. as well as Dilip Dalmia and C. M. Agarwal mentioned in the complaint have filed this application before this Court for quashing the proceeding started on the basis of the said F. I. R.
(2.) THE case of the petitioners as pleaded in the revisional application is summarised hereunder. The petitioner no. 2 is one of the officers of the company being the petitioner no. 1 herein. Petitioner no. 3 is the accountant of the said company. The company carries on the business of manufacturing high Voltage Overhead Electrical Transmission Line Materials. Railway Inserts etc. at its factory at Lilooah, Howrah wherein it employs nearly 850 workers. The company made payment of excise duty of over Rs. 37 crores and customs duty of over Rs. 29. 87 lakhs during the year 1990-91 and made payment of customs duly of about Rs. 126 lakhs in the year 1991-92. besides other taxes like West Bengal Sales Tax, Central Sales Tax. Turnover Tax etc. One M/s. Kundi Brothers of Ludhiana is the supplier of steel forgings to the petitioner company. On 18th April, 1991 M/s. Kundi Brothers of Ludhiana despatched steel forgings through the carrier Super Fast Roadway Corporation of Ludhiana on door to door delivery basis to the petitioner company. The arrangement was that the said carrier would carry the forgings to the factory of the petitioner company where the goods would be inspected, tested and if not rejected then only payment in respect thereof would be made. In the instant case, the steel forgings in question were supplied by the said earner to the factory of the petitioner company on 25th April 1991, where these goods were inspected and tested subsequently and thereafter payment was made. The payment included not only the price of the goods but also all other charges in respect thereof including Octroi and/or Entry Tax under the TEGMA Act 1972. The property in the goods passed on to the petitioner company only after the goods were inspected and tested at the petitioner company's factory and until that time the petitioner company was neither the owner of the goods nor was the petitioner company in any way responsible for the movement of the goods or any dealings or transactions in respect thereof. The petitioners had no concern with the goods at the time when the same crossed the Check post barrier or entered the Calcutta Metropolitan Area and the liability for payment of the Octroi at that point of time was with M/s. Kundi Brothers and payment had been made by Kundi Brothers or on its behalf by its agent. The petitioner company cannot be held liable under sections 24 ( l) (a) or (b) of the TEGMA Act, 1972 and it had no occasion to make any declaration under section 13 of the tegma Act and hence the question of its omitting or failing to make such declaration does not arise. Similarly, the [petitioner company and/or petitioner nos. 2 and 3 had no obligation to make payment of any entry tax at the entry point of goods and hence the question of evading payment of such tax by the petitioners or forging any document in connection therewith does not arise at all. The First Information Report did mat make out any criminal offence as against the petitioners and there is no charge or allegation that the petitioners have forged or fabricated any document. It is absurd to allege that the petitioner company having huge business dealings would indulge in evading entry tax of Rs. 7792/- Only and that too by forging a receipt. On 26th september, 1991 some Inspectors of the opposite party no. 1, namely, the bureau of Investigation, Octroi Department visited the Registered Office of the petitioner company and called upon the petitioner no. 2 to produce all documents in possession of the petitioner company relating to Kundi Brothers and the petitioner no. 2 produced the files containing invoices, consignment notes, inspection reports etc. and the Inspector seized some of such files and issued a seizure receipt under section 22 (f) of the TEGMA Act. The said files did not contain any Entry Tax receipt in Form- V issued under TEGMA Act inasmuch as the price of the goods supplied by M/s. Kundi Brothers included freight and Entry Tax and/pr Octroi under TEGMA Act. All documents relating to payment of Entry Tax under the TEGMA Act were in possession of the said supplier Kundi Brothers. By a Notice dated 5th October, 1991 the opposite party no. 1 called upon the petitioner company to produce Entry Tax receipt under the TEGMA Act in respect of entry of various goods purchased by the petitioner company and which crossed the Entry Tax Check post during the period 16th October, 1990 to 26th September, 1991. The petitioner company thereafter requested Kundi Brothers to send relevant receipts relating to payment of Entry Tax during the period in question and thereafter the representative of the petitioner company in Delhi went to Ludhiana and obtained receipts relating to payment of Entry Tax on the consignment sent by M/s. Kundi Brothers to the petitioner company during the period in question. On 28th October, 1991 the petitioner no. 3 produced before the inspector of the opposite party no. 1 various records including Entry Tax receipts received from M/s. Kundi Brothers and the Inspector seized the Entry Tax money Receipt bearing serial no. AM-645780 dated'23-4-91. for Rs. 7792/-and relevant Form- IV and granted a seizure receipt under section 22 (1) of the tegma Act. The Form- V which was seized by the officers of the opposite party no. 1 on 28th October, 1991 was obtained by the petitioner company from m/s. Kundi Brothers for being produced before the officers of the opposite party no. 1 in pursuance of the Notice: dated 5th October, 1991 and the petitioners had no role to play in payment or deposit of any Entry Tax and/or octroi with regard to the consignment in question. On the averments and allegations noted above, the petitioners have come up now for quashing the proceedings in the Polba Case No. 42 of 1992 dated 4th March, 1992.
(3.) THE learned Advocate for the petitioners argued that the written complaint on the basis of which the f. I. R, was recorded does not contain sufficient materials to show the commission of any offence under sections 24 (l) (a) and (b) of the TEGMA Act. 1972 and 468/471 / 120b I. P. C. In this connection, he also attracted my attention to the provisions of sections 468 and 471 I. P. C. etc. and made submissions about the required ingredients of offences punishable under the said sections for the purpose of impressing that the written complaint on the basis of which the F. I. R, was drawn up does not disclose necessary ingredients of the offences nor does the complaint contain any specific allegation against the present petitioners regarding the commission of the offences mentioned therein. In this connection, it is however to be noted that the written complaint to the police in lodging the F. I. R for the purpose of prompting the police to start an investigation thereon need not be an encyclopedia containing all details of the offence and the offenders. It will be absurd to hold that unless all the ingredients of an offence are elaborately spelt out in the F. I. R, and unless all the details about offenders are mentioned in the f. I. R, there cannot be any investigation. We may take a very common example. Suppose there has been a theft in the house of a person at night. The person discovers on waking up in the next morning in the previous night while he was asleep by some open a window of his room and he also discovers that certain articles have been taken away by the thieves and then he goes to the police station and lodges an f. I. R by stating that in the previous night a theft has been committed in his house and the thief or the thieves have also taken away certain articles specified by him. As he did not see the thieves obviously he cannot name the thieves in the F. I. R. It will be an absurd proposition to argue in the circumstances that the F. I. R, should be quashed and the police should be debarred from embarking upon any investigation on the basis of that F. I. R because the informal has simply slated that there was a theft in his house without stating the necessary ingredients of theft as defined in section 3781. P. C. , to be precise, that some person or persons had moved some articles from his room in the previous night in order to take away such articles with the intention of dishonestly taking away the same out of his possession and without his consent. This certainly cannot be the requirement of law for starting an investigation on the allegation of theft. It is also equally an absurd proposition to say that unless the names of all the offenders are stated in the F. I. R fully disclosing in what manner they are involved in the commission of the alleged offence or offences, there cannot be any investigation at all. On the other hand it must not be lost sight of that law provides for police investigation in respect of cognizable offences where there is reason to suspect the commission of any such offence and the very purpose of investigation is to ascertain whether really any such offence was committed and if so in what manner it was committed, what evidence are available and who are the persons who committed such offence as well as other offences, if any, associated therewith.;