I.S. Israni, J. - (1.) THIS is an application under Section 438, Criminal Procedure Code, for grant of anticipatory bail in Criminal Case No. 340 of 1986, pending trial in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Jaipur City, Jaipur, under Section 276C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").
(2.) A complaint under Sections 276C, 276CC and 277 of the Act was filed in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Jaipur City, Jaipur, by the Income Tax Officer, Central Circle -II, against the petitioner. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, under his order, took cognizance of the offence and directed issuance of a non -bailable warrant so as to effect attendance of the petitioner to face trial. Apprehending his arrest, a petition was moved in the court of the learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur, under Section 438, Criminal Procedure Code, which was rejected by order dated December 8, 1986. Mr. Jagdeep Dhanker, learned counsel for the petitioner, has pointed out that a search was conducted at the premises of the petitioner on May 12, 1981, and cash amounting to Rs. 96,838 and ornaments valued by the Department at Rs. 48,905 were, found and, according to the Department, the petitioner could not explain the source. It is also pointed out that so far as the amount of jewellery is concerned, its value keeps on rising by passage of time and the valuation put by the Department is exaggerated. It is also pointed out that some jewellery has been shown to be owned substantively by the wife of the petitioner, but protectively has also been added to the ownership of the petitioner and it has been stated that the same jewellery cannot be taken to belong to two parties. Learned counsel, therefore, points out that under the provisions of Section 276C(1)(i) of the Act, it is provided that if the amount sought to be evaded exceeds Rs. 1,00,000, the term of imprisonment shall not be less than six months, but may extend to seven years and fine and under Sub -clause (ii) in any other case, the term of imprisonment shall not be less than three months, but may extend to three years with fine. He has, therefore, stressed that the offence, if any, proved against the petitioner shall be covered by the latter part of Section 276C(ii) of the Act. Learned counsel further points out that the total tax required to be paid by the petitioner is Rs. 1,43,829 which has been paid and the original receipts were produced in the court. It has been further pointed out that this tux amount has been paid even though an appeal against the summary order passed by the learned Income Tax Officer has been filed which is still pending. The objections under Section 132(11) of the Act have also been filed and several reminders to decide the same have been sent to the Department, but with no effect and the objections are still pending. He has pointed out that the petitioner is a respectable person and is not involved in any criminal case and has no conviction to his discredit.
(3.) MR . Amar Singh, learned counsel for the Department, has, on the other hand, stressed that apart from the proceedings under Section 276C and 276CC, proceedings under Section 277 have also been initiated against the petitioner. He has also pointed out that the matter of foreign exchange recovery of certain amount of Liras is also involved against the petitioner. The value of Liras in Indian currency, according to learned counsel, is about Rs. 10. Learned counsel has stressed that the petitioner keeps going out of India frequently and may not be available to the Department, if required at any time. He has drawn my attention to the case of Pokar Ram v. State of Rajasthan, [1985] SCC (Cr.) 297. This was a case regarding anticipatory bail moved by a person who was accused of committing murder by fire -arms. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed that in such cases, the court's approach should be cautious and relevant considerations for grant of anticipatory bail in such cases differ from those for granting other kinds of bails. In that case, the anticipatory bail granted by this court was cancelled. He has also drawn my attention to the case of State (through Deputy Commissioner of Police Special Branch, New Delhi) v. Jaspal Singh Gill, [1984] SCC (Cr.) 444. This was a case relating to the offence of passing on defence secrets to a foreign agency which was punishable under the Official Secrets Act. The bail application made by the accused respondents during the investigation was rejected by the trial court. In this case, the bail granted by the High Court was cancelled by their Lordships of the Supreme Court.;