Pankaj Agarwal vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The High Court allowed the criminal miscellaneous petition, setting aside the impugned order of issuing warrants of arrest. The Court held that while the Revenue correctly pointed out that the petitioners had deliberately avoided appearing before the investigating agency and that the Special Court has the power to issue warrants post-cognizance under Section 204 of the Cr.P.C., the issuance of warrants without a service report of the summons was procedurally flawed. The Court agreed with the petitioners' contention that once summons have been issued, a warrant can only be issued after receipt of the service report. The Court distinguished this from pre-cognizance stages during investigation where petitioners had repeatedly avoided appearance. The Court directed the petitioners to appear before the learned Court below within two weeks. Failure to do so would empower the learned Court below to take coercive measures. The Court expressly left undecided the legality of the order transferring the case from Raipur to Jamshedpur.

Facts

The petitioners, directors and proprietors of various companies and firms involved in iron and steel trading, are challenging bailable and non-bailable warrants issued against them by the Special Judge, Economic Offences, Jamshedpur. The prosecution alleges that the petitioners created fake entities to avail and utilize Input Tax Credit (ITC) amounting to Rs. 101,91,14,980/-, causing a loss to the government exchequer. The petitioners contend they are registered and discharge tax liabilities in Chhattisgarh and have been cooperating with investigations, furnishing documents and responding to summons. They highlight previous writ petitions where this Court directed their appearance before the Senior Intelligence Officer without arrest on the first appearance. Petitioner No. 1 was arrested and remanded to custody in May 2019, later released by the Chhattisgarh High Court. A complaint case was filed in Jamshedpur, and after cognizance was taken, summons were issued.

Key Issues

1. Whether the issuance of bailable and non-bailable warrants against the petitioners by the Special Judge, Economic Offences, Jamshedpur, is legally sustainable without the receipt of a service report for the previously issued summons, in light of the principles laid down in Satender Kumar Antil Versus Central Bureau Of Investigation, (2022) 10 SCC 51. Petitioner's argument: The petitioners argue that it is settled law that a warrant of arrest cannot be issued without first receiving a service report of the summons previously issued. They rely on the Supreme Court's decision in Satender Kumar Antil. Revenue's argument: The Revenue contends that this is not a case of summoning for the first time. The petitioners had deliberately avoided appearing before the investigating agency multiple times, despite this Court's earlier directions. They argue that the Special Court has the power to issue warrants post-cognizance under Section 204 of the Cr.P.C., and there is no mandate to issue summons in all circumstances, even in warrant cases. The Revenue also states that the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil noted that special reasons are required for issuing warrants in such cases, which they believe exist here due to the petitioners' deliberate avoidance.