Sri Akella Sai Kumar vs. The Union Of INDIA, And Another

Held

The Court held that while a writ petition may be maintainable under Article 226 for pre-arrest protection as per a Division Bench judgment, such power must be exercised sparingly and in exceptional circumstances, citing the Apex Court in Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab. In this case, the Court found no exceptional circumstances beyond referring to the remand report and discrepancies in the statement recording dates. The Court noted that the arrest authorization under Section 69 of the Act indicated the competent authority had reason to believe the petitioner committed offenses under Section 132. Furthermore, other individuals connected to the company had already invoked Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., and the petitioner's bail application was pending. Regarding the non-obtaining of prior permission under Section 132(6), the Court stated it was a matter for the trial stage. Consequently, the Court was not inclined to entertain the writ petition and scuttle the investigation, dismissing it and leaving the petitioner to avail alternative remedies. The trial court was directed to dispose of the bail application expeditiously.

Facts

The petitioner, a director of M/s Aaria Project Limited, filed a writ petition challenging his judicial remand. He was arrested on August 22, 2018, and his statement was allegedly recorded on the same day, despite a summons to appear on August 23, 2019. The petitioner argued that his arrest under Section 69 of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 (the Act) was illegal as there was no belief that he committed an offense under Section 132 of the Act. He also contended that prior sanction from the Commissioner, as mandated by Section 132(6) of the Act, was not obtained before prosecuting him. The petitioner relied on a Division Bench judgment of the High Court for the maintainability of the writ petition. The respondents argued that the writ petition was not maintainable as the petitioner should have invoked Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and that alternative remedies were available, including a pending bail application.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable for challenging the judicial remand and quashing criminal proceedings initiated under the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017, or if the petitioner should avail the remedy under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (Petitioner: Contended that the writ petition is maintainable based on a Division Bench judgment of the High Court for pre-arrest protection and challenging violations of statutory provisions. Revenue/State: Argued that Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is the appropriate remedy and a writ petition is not maintainable, especially when alternative remedies like a bail application are available. They also argued that discretionary writ jurisdiction should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances). 2. Whether the arrest of the petitioner under Section 69 of the Act was illegal and arbitrary due to the absence of reasons to believe he committed an offense under Section 132 of the Act, and whether the prosecution violated Section 132(6) of the Act by not obtaining prior sanction from the Commissioner. (Petitioner: Alleged illegality in arrest and violation of mandatory prior sanction. Revenue/State: Did not explicitly address the merits of these contentions but focused on the maintainability of the writ petition and the availability of alternative remedies.)