Rajesh Dindayal Mundra vs. State Of Gujarat

Held

The Court held that due to the prevailing pandemic situation, there was an overall contraction in economic activities, and the applicant's submission of facing a financial crunch could not be doubted. The Court acknowledged the State's concern for GST recovery and the applicant's assurance to commence payments from April 2021. Therefore, the Court found it necessary to modify the time for payment. The condition regarding the deposit was modified, directing the applicant to deposit Rs. 50 lakhs on or before April 15, 2021, and the remaining Rs. 2 crores in monthly installments of Rs. 20 lakhs each from May 2021, instead of the original deadlines of October 12, 2020, and November 2020, respectively. The Court made the rule absolute to this extent.

Facts

The applicant, Rajesh Dindayal Mundra, filed a criminal miscellaneous application under Section 439 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking modification of an order dated September 11, 2020, passed by the 10th Additional Sessions Judge, Surat. The original order directed the applicant to deposit Rs. 50 lakhs by October 12, 2020, and the remaining Rs. 2 crores in monthly installments of Rs. 20 lakhs each from November 2020. The applicant argued that due to the prevailing economic conditions affecting his export-import business, he was facing a financial crunch and could not meet the deposit deadlines. He requested a modification of the payment schedule, stating his business was expected to normalize from April 2021. The State opposed the application, arguing the applicant had sufficient resources and the non-payment was causing the State exchequer to suffer, but conceded that the condition could be modified with reasonable time granted.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should modify the payment schedule for the deposit of Rs. 2.5 crores, originally ordered by the learned 10th Additional Sessions Judge, Surat, considering the applicant's financial difficulties due to the prevailing pandemic situation and its impact on his export-import business, as per Section 439 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Petitioner's Argument: The applicant contended that the prevailing economic conditions had brought his export-import business to a standstill, causing a severe financial crunch. He argued that his business was likely to become normal from April 2021 and therefore, the payment schedule should be modified. He assured that he would not seek further extensions. Revenue's Argument: The State opposed the application, submitting that the applicant possessed sufficient resources to make the payment, and the delay was causing the State exchequer to suffer. However, the State conceded that considering the overall facts, the condition could be modified and reasonable time granted to the applicant.