RAJENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
LAWS(RAJ)-1997-1-38
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Decided on January 15,1997

RAJENDRA SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF RAJASTHAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

M.A.A.KHAN, J. - (1.) THE petitioner, Rajendra Singh, used to carry on his business of selling and repairing radios in the business name of M/S Rajan Radios at Jaipur under registration certificate No. 87/8630/JPR and was assessed to sale tax. Demands for sales tax under Sections 12 and 16(i)(c) the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (the Act) for A.Y. 1956 -57 to A.Y. 1964 -65 amounting to Rs. 17,320.95 were raised against him and his movable property in the shop was attached on 17.8.1966. As late as in the year 1983 decision to prosecute him for offence Under Section 16(3) of the Act was taken and the sanctioning authority accorded the sanction to prosecute the petitioner. The Asstt. Commercial Taxes Officer ward IH(B) Circle f, Jaipur accordingly filed a complaint against the petitioner on 18.12.83. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of offence Under Section 16(3)(h) of the Act and summoned the petitioner as an accused. The petitioner challenged the order dated 18.12.83 by filing an application Under Section 257 Cr. P.C. before the learned Magistrate. By his impugned order dated 29.7.89 the learned Magistrate rejected his application for cancellation of order dated 18.12.83. Hence this petition Under Section 482 Cr. P.C.
(2.) MR . R.K. Yadava, the learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that launching prosecution after 20 years of the commission of an offence punishable with six months imprisonment or fine and that too when the petitioner had been deprived of his very source of earning his livelihood by attachment of moveable property clearly amounts to abuse of the process of law and such abuse must' be prevented by this Court in order to secure ends of justice to the petitioner. Though the learned A.P.P. submitted that the offence committed by the petitioner was a continuing offence and therefore, the provisions of Section 468 Cr. P.C. do not stand attracted to this case yet I am satisfied that in the facts and circumstances of this case the continuance of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner amount to abuse of the process of the court of the learned Magistrate. The powers of this Court Under Section 482 Cr. P.C. are exceptional and should be sparingly exercised in rarest of rare cases where it is necessary to do so in order to prevent the abuse of the court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. I find the present case one of the rarest of rare cases where this Court should act to prevent the abuse of the process of law.
(3.) SECTION 16(3)(h) of the Act, relevant for our purpose, reads as under 'Section 16(3), If any person: (h) wilfully refuses or fails to pay the amount of any demand notice, and a period of not less than six months has elapsed since the receipt of the demand notice by him; he shall, on conviction by a judicial Magistrate, be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine not exceeding one thousand rupees or with both. [Explanation -An offence under this clause shall be deemed to be a continuing offence until payment is made or] (9) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Central Act 2 of 1974): (b) the Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner [competent to sanction] prosecution for any offence may, either before or after the institution of proceedings, accept from any person charged with the offence, by way of composition of the offence: (i) such sum not exceeding three times, but not less than the amount of tax evaded in consequence of an offence; and (ii) where the offence does not result in any evasion of tax, such sum not exceeding two thousand rupees, as the Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner, as the case may be, may by order determine. (c) on payment of the sum determined under Sub -clause (b), no further proceedings, shall be taken in respect of the offence under Sub -section (2) or Sub -section (3) against the person charged with it; and (d) The composition of an offence under this sub -section shall be without prejudice to the liability of the person charged with the offence to pay the tax under this Act. ;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.