High Court Of Rajasthan : Jaipur Bench
Arun Kumar Sogani & Ors. vs. State Of Rajasthan
Sections 194A, 201(1A), 276B, 278B
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Applications Nos. 5 to 13 of 1989
30th January, 1989
R.K. Kasliwal & P.K. Kasliwal, for the Petitioners : K.N. Garg, for the Respondent
Complaints under ss. 276B and 278B of the IT Act, 1961, have been filed against the accused petitioners who are partners of the firm, Universal Supply Corporation. Eight complaints have been lodged because, according to the contention of the Department, the petitioners failed to deposit tax which was deducted by them while paying interest to eight creditors. The total amount of such tax deducted comes to Rs. 1,33,810. This tax has to be deducted in accordance with the provisions of s. 194A of the IT Act. The petitioners admit that this tax was not initially deposited with the Department but it has been subsequently deposited within four months along with interest at 15 per cent per annum as is provided under s. 201(1A) of the IT Act. The total interest deposited is Rs. 6,686. It is, in these circumstances, that these applications for grant of anticipatory bail moved by the petitioners are to be considered. On the companies, the Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Jaipur, has issued non-bailable warrants for the arrest of these petitioners.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that due to mistake, the amount deducted by way of tax was not deposited within time and now the same has been deposited along with interest and it can be said that the petitioners are not liable for the payment of any sum of money now. So far, notice for imposing penalty as provided in s. 221 of the IT Act has also not been issued. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, the tax along with interest was deposited soon after the mistake came to their notice.
2. At present, the only matter to be decided is whether, in the above circumstances, the petitioners can be granted anticipatory bail or not. For this purpose, in some earlier cases also [See 1988 Cr. L.J. (Raj) 610], it has been considered that the fact that the tax had already been deposited before filing of the complaint was relevant in finding out as to what would be the nature of the offence which could be said to have been committed by the accused petitioners. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, it can be said that since the tax has been deposited along with interest and the petitioners will face trial, then the non-bailable warrants can be converted into bailable warrants. It may also be clarified that the petitioners themselves should appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Jaipur, without being served with non-bailable warrants on or before 15th Feb., 1989.
The bail application of the petitioners is allowed and the non-bailable warrants issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences) Jaipur, in Criminal Case No. 10 of 1989 are converted into bailable warrants. The SHO/Arresting Officer/Investigating Officer is, therefore, directed that in the event of arrest in compliance with the non- bailable warrants issued in Criminal Case No. 10 of 1989 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Jaipur, of the petitioners, Arun Kumar Sogani, Prakash Chand Sogani and Mrs. Loveleens Sogani, they be released on bail provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000(Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties each in the sum of Rs. 5,000 to his satisfaction on the following conditions :
(a) that the petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (b) that the petitioners shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; and (c) that the petitioners shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.
[Citation :181 ITR 54]