Ashok Sukhija vs. State Of Haryana - Punjab and Haryana High Court, 31 May 2024

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

[258] Ashok Su State of H [259] Narender State of H Coram : Present: PANKAJ [1] grant of registered 420, 465, prevention Police Sta IN THE HIGH COURT OF P AT CHANDIGA CRM-M- Date of D ukhija versus Haryana CRM-M-2 Kumar Ranga versus Haryana HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P Mr. Harpreet S. Rakhra, Adv in CRM-M-25782-2024. Mr. Aditya Sanghi, Advocate in CRM-M-26601-2024. Mr. Ramesh Kumar Ambavta *** J JAIN, J. (ORAL) Present petitions have been f regular bail in case bearing d for the offences punishable un , 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC (a n of Corruption Act, 1988 appre ation City Sirsa, District Sirsa. PUNJAB AND HARYANA ARH -25782-2024 (O&M) Decision : 31.05.2024 …Petitioner ….Respondent 26601-2024 (O&M) …Petitioner ….Respondent PANKAJ JAIN vocate for the petitioner e for the petitioner a, AAG, Haryana. filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. FIR No.1167 dated 26.11.20 nder Sections 114, 406, 409, 4 addition of Sections 7 & 13 of ehended to be added now or later for 018 419, the r) at RAJNEESH SHARMA 2024.05.31 06:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-2 connected [2] 25782-2024 and d matter As per contents of the FIR, it “FIR NO.1167 DATED 26.1 SECTIONS 114, 406, 409, 419 OF THE IPC (ADDITION O PREVENTION OF CO APPREHENDED TO BE AD POLICE STATION CITY SIR Office of The Supdt. Sirsa-125055(Hry). From Dy E The Superintendent of Police, Subject: To lodge an FIR Again Officer (Retired) and other pro ETO (Retired) during his p 25.8.2014 issued 93 refunds. S made a complaint against Sh. Sh. Ashok Sharma (the the Commissioner), for preliminary report dated 7.2.2014. Further was initiated' against Sh. Asho Session Judge (Retired) was m Inquiry Officer in his report Sukhija, ETO (Retired) to the e compliance of instructions for v the treasury by the assessing refund under section 20 of the A of connivance between the two against the delinquent to the directions received from Hon Haryana to lodge FIR against Sh.Ashok Sukhia, ETO(Retired) verification of payment of inp causing loss to the State Excheq -2- t has been alleged as under :- 11.2018, REGISTERED UNDER 9, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B F SECTIONS 7 & 13 OF THE ORRUPTION ACT, 1988 DDED NOW OR LATER) AT SA, DISTRICT SIRSA of Police Dairy 5557 dt. 23.10 Excise Taxation Commissioner (ST) Sirsa. No. 4971/IT Dated 23.10 nst Sh. Ashok Sukhija, Excise Taxat oprietors of firms. Shri Ashok Sukh posting at Sirsa from 2.7.2013 Shri Vinod Kumar S/o Sh. Hari Si Ashok Sukhija which was marked n Additional Excise and Taxat y enquiry Sh. Ashok Sharma submi r, departmental enquiry under rul ok Sukhija and Sh. R.P.Bajaj, Dist ade the inquiry officer. Sh. R.P.Ba dated 24.6.2016 indicted Sh. As extent that Sh. Ashok Sukhija for n verification of payment of input tax officers recommending/ordering Act. In any case, it involves allegat o. In the result, the charge is pro extent indicated above." Further n'ble Excise Taxation Commission t Sh. Ashok Sukhija, ETO (Retd). ) issued refunds to the dealers with put tax to the State Treasury ther quer, hence the FIR is to be lodged R B E 8 T 0.18 ) To .18. tion hija, to ngh d to tion tted le 7 trict ajaj, hok non x in the tion oved the ner, As hout reby d RAJNEESH SHARMA 2024.05.31 06:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-2 connected [3] was poste approved relevant t regular b observing 25782-2024 and d matter against the above named retire to who refunds were issued w intimated later on as and when hereby requested to lodge an others under relevant provisio Taxation Commissioner (ST) Si Learned counsel for the pet ed as ETO and had passed f by his Superior namely Gopi C time posted as ATC. Gopi Cha ail vide order dated 18.12.202 g as under :- “5. On the specific query be the State as to what was th refund to the accused-firm as on instructions from the Inv petitioner used to charge 2% 6. Having heard rival co finds that the allegation in th claimed refund wrongly b documents of sale. Thus th

relates to error in judgment. petitioner acted in cahoots w illegally.

It is not disputed by already stands presented. In date the evidence w.r.t. meeti

-3- ed officer. The names of firms/dea without proper verification shall n received from Head Office You FIR against Sh. Ashok Sukhija a ons of law. Satyawala Dy. Exc irsa. ” titioner submits that the petitio final assessment order which w Chand Chaudhary, who was at and Chaudhary stands admitted 23 passed in CRM-M-59872-20 eing asked to Counsel represent he role of the petitioner in issu s unearthed in the investigation, vestigating Officer submits that % to 3% commission on refund. ontention of the parties, this Co he FIR is w.r.t. the assessee hav by submitting forged and fa e role of the petitioner prima There is no such allegation that with the assessee to award refu y State Counsel that the Chal nvestigation is complete and as ing of minds between the petition

lers l be are and cise oner was the d to 023 ting uing , he the ourt ving alse rily the fund llan on ner RAJNEESH SHARMA 2024.05.31 06:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-2 connected

[4] M-52902- petitioner

25782-2024 and d matter

and the main accused remain

The petitioner is stated earning pension from the Sta petitioner served State with antecedents.

In view of above this C to prolong custody of the p Resultantly, the present peti ordered to be released o bonds/surety bonds to the sa Magistrate concerned.” He further relies upon order -2023 titled as Ashok Sukhija V r stands admitted to bail observin “4. On behalf of petitioner ld. counsel that petitioner h 02.07.2013, whereas the case year 2011-12. It is Sh. D. Taxation Officer, who was physical verification of the fi documents of the firm. It conducted the necessary ve simply passed the final as assessment done and the ref and in this way, petitioner w the allegations made in the F

(i) Apart from above, ld. have drawn attention towards

-4- ns amiss. d to be 67 years old Senior Citi ate. It is also not disputed that clean record and has no crimi Court finds that there is no reas petitioner as a punitive measu ition is allowed. The petitioner on bail on his furnishing b atisfaction of the Trial Court/D ng as under :- r-Ashok Sukhija, it is contended had joined his services at Sirsa e in hand pertains to refund for P. Beniwal, the then Excise a s responsible for conducting firm, examine the returns and ve is said D.P. Beniwal, who h erification and that petitioner h ssessment order on the basis fund order issued by D.P. Beniw was not concerned in any way w FIR. . counsel for both the petitione ds the fact that loss to the State

izen the inal son ure. r is bail Duty RM- the d by on the and the rify had had of wal, with ers, RAJNEESH SHARMA 2024.05.31 06:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-2 connected 25782-2024 and d matter

exchequer to the tune of Rs.2 of the respondent/State only order was passed, as is evi itself. It is more than 5 years the revision, that letter was s Sirsa to register the case and year, the FIR has been lodg there is an unexplained dela date of alleged commission of (ii) Ld. counsels further co upon documentary evidence; concluded and there is no p absconding from justice and inasmuch as co-accused Go been allowed bail by this Cou

Opposing the bail pet that petitioners committed ec State exchequer to the tune though the allegations make the Act, but at the same time the police to investigate a cri case allegations leveled in th offences under the IPC. Ld. and fabrication of document large, as they are involved in tax credit on the basis of forg rejecting both the petitions.

I have considered subm appraised the record carefull

A Co-ordinate Bench 2016 decided on 16.05.2023

-5- 29,29,359/- had come to the not y on 11.11.2014, when the revis dent from the contents of the F s from the date of that final order sent to the Superintendent of Pol d another approximately about o ged on 24.10.2020 and in this w ay of more than 8 years from of the offence. ontend that entire case is depend ; that investigation already sta prospect of any of the petition d so, they be allowed regular b opi Chand Chaudhary has alrea urt. titions, ld. State counsel conte conomic offences causing loss to e of more than Rs.29 lakhs; t e out violation of the provisions e, there is nothing which preclud ime under the provisions of IPC he FIR make out the commission State counsel contends that fra ts on the part of petitioners is w n evading of VAT by claiming in rged documents. Prayer is made missions of both the sides and h ly. of this Court in CRM-M-236 662- of RAJNEESH SHARMA 2024.05.31 06:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-2 connected 25782-2024 and d matter

Punjab examined the provis Punjab Value Added Tax Ac providing for penalty for fa false invoices and observed squarely covered under the p the 2005 Act. It was further complete Code in itself and th 2005 Act for registration of that the 2005 Act only provid there is any contravention of Act is a special law, princ derogant would apply, mea exclusion to the general law Court relied upon Pritpal Si 26116-2010 decided on 05.0 upon a judgment of Hon’ matrix in Ashwani Kumar’s (Supra) and Dilawar Singh’s comment as to whether i allegations regarding bogus false and fabricated docume be a debatable issue as to w be applicable to the present c

-6- sions of Sections 57 & 58 of t, 2005 [‘for short ‘the 2005 Ac ailure to issue invoices and use d that allegations of the FIR provisions of Sections 57 & 58 r observed that the 2005 Act i here is no provision provided in f the FIR. It was further obser ded for imposition of penalty in c f its provisions and since the 20 ciple of generalia specialibus n aning thereby it would operate i.e., the IPC. While holding so, ingh Vs. State of Punjab [CRM- 03.2012], which in turn had rel ’ble Supreme Court rendered r Singh @ Iqbal Singh and anoth 5, holding that provisions of the to deal with the matter, where e Tax and the registration of FIR an abuse of the process of law otices that in the absence of fact case (Supra), Pritpal Singh’s c s case (Supra), it is not possible in those cases also, there w refund of input tax credit based ents. In these circumstances, it w whether the provisions of IPC sh case or not.

the ct’], e of are 8 of is a the rved case 005 non e in the -M- lied in her, Act an R in . 9. tual case e to were d on will hall RAJNEESH SHARMA 2024.05.31 06:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-2 connected [5] aforement [6] through th

25782-2024 and d matter

10.

At the same time, it is counsel that FIR pertains to in respect of Assessment Ye loss of Rs.29,29,359/- to the least on 11.11.2014 in revis FIR itself. No explanation is more than 5 years so as to wr Police, Sirsa on 11.12.2019 and then another approxima registered on 24.10.2020. 11. Apart from this unex mostly based upon docum already complete. Challan a Court concerned. Coaccused Excise and Taxation Commi bail by a Coordinate Benc 09.10.2023 passed in CRM- report, even the charges are @ Mahesh Bansal (petition custody ever-since 01.05.20 months; whereas Ashok Suk 2023) is in custody since 31. 6 months. Trial may take time

Learned State counsel is n tioned factual assertions based o I have heard learned couns he records of the case.

-7- s not disputed even by the ld. St the bogus refund of input tax cre ear 2011-12, in which the alleg e State exchequer was finalized sion order, as is mentioned in given in the FIR about the delay rite a letter to the Superintenden to take action against the culp ately one year for getting the F xplained huge delay, the case entary evidence. Investigation already stands presented before d Gopi Chand Chaudhary, the th issioner, has already been allow h of this Court vide order da -M-49998- 2023. As per the sta e yet to be framed. Mahesh Kum ner in CRM-M-56316-2023) is 023 i.e., for the last more than khija (petitioner in CRM-M-529 05.2023 i.e., for the last more th e to conclude.” not in a position to dispute th on record. sel for the parties and have go

tate edit ged d at the y of nt of prits FIR e is n is the hen wed ated atus mar s in n 7 902- han he one RAJNEESH SHARMA 2024.05.31 06:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-2 connected

[7] the incarc stands pre to be rele of the Ld. [8] construed [9] [10] case.

31.05.

202 ‘R. Sharma'

25782-2024 and d matter Without commenting on the m ceration suffered by the petitio esented, the present petition is a ased on bail on his furnishing ba . Trial Court/Duty Magistrate, co Needless to say that anyth d to be an opinion on the merits o Pending application(s), if any Photocopy of this order be p

24 Whether speaking/ reasoned Whether reportable

-8- merits of the case and considerin oner and the fact that the challa allowed. The petitioner is ordere ail/surety bonds to the satisfactio oncerned. hing observed herein shall not of the case. y, also stands disposed of. placed on file of the connected (PANKAJ JAIN)

JUDGE

: Yes/No : Yes/No ng an ed on be d RAJNEESH SHARMA 2024.05.31 06:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document