Vishnu Kumar Shaw Alias Bishnu Kumar Shaw vs. The State Of Jharkhand

Held

The Court held that the framing of charges by the learned Magistrate was not illegal or arbitrary. Regarding the petitioner's argument that he was not named in the FIR, the Court noted that the police recorded statements of co-accused, including the petitioner, which indicated his involvement. The Court also found that the petitioner's mobile number was in regular touch with the firm and its associates, and his mobile phone was seized. The Court distinguished the cited Supreme Court judgments in Jeewan Kumar Raut and Sharat Babu Digumarti, finding them inapplicable to the present facts. The Court relied on established Supreme Court precedents like State By The Inspector Of Police, Chennai vs. S. Selvi and Another, M. E. Shivalingamurthy vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, and State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Shiv Charan Bansal and Ors, which state that at the stage of framing charges, the court only needs to form a prima facie opinion based on the material on record, without conducting a deep inquiry into the probative value of the evidence. The Court found that the material on record, including statements of co-accused and mobile phone data, disclosed a grave suspicion against the petitioner, justifying the framing of charges. The issue of sanction was implicitly upheld by the Court's finding that the Magistrate committed no illegality. The Court found the criminal revision application to be devoid of merit.

Facts

The petitioner, Vishnu Kumar Shaw, challenged an order dated 02.05.2019 by the Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar, which framed charges against him under Sections 420, 467, 468/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 132(1) (b)/(c)/(e) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The case originated from an FIR lodged on 06.06.2018 concerning M/s Saha Enterprises. The petitioner argued that he was not named in the FIR and his involvement was based on the confessional statement of his brother, Moti Saw, the proprietor of the firm. He contended that all GST and PAN details were in his brother's name, and he had no connection to the firm. The petitioner also questioned the validity of the sanction for prosecution, arguing it was granted by the Additional Commissioner instead of the Commissioner. The State argued that the petitioner, in connivance with his brother, availed Input Tax Credit (ITC) amounting to Rs. 24,46,47,612/- for 2017-18 using a fake firm, M/s Saha Enterprises, whose existence could not be verified. The State submitted that the petitioner was named by his brother and other co-accused, and his mobile number was found to be in regular touch with the firm.

Key Issues

1. Whether the charges framed against the petitioner under Sections 420, 467, 468/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 132(1) (b)/(c)/(e) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, are illegal and arbitrary, considering the petitioner was not named in the FIR and his alleged involvement stems from the confessional statement of a co-accused (his brother)? (Question of law and fact, turning on Sections 420, 467, 468/34 IPC and Section 132(1) (b)/(c)/(e) GST Act). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner is not named in the FIR, and his involvement is solely based on the confessional statement of his brother, Moti Saw. All firm-related documents are in his brother's name, indicating no direct connection. The sanction for prosecution is also illegal as it was not granted by the Commissioner. Reliance on Jeewan Kumar Raut and Sharat Babu Digumarti. Revenue's contention: The petitioner is the brother of the prime accused and was in connivance with him, availing a significant amount of ITC through a fake firm. The petitioner was named by his brother and other co-accused, and his mobile number was linked to the firm's operations. The sanction was properly communicated. Reliance on the principle that at the stage of framing charges, the court only needs to find a prima facie case.