Ajay Singh vs. State Of U.P. And Another

Held

The High Court held that there was no illegality, material irregularity, or manifest error in the impugned orders that would warrant interference under its supervisory jurisdiction. The Court observed that the petitioner had an opportunity to summon documents from the GST Department at the stage of his defence, after the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. Therefore, the petition was considered premature at the current stage. The Court disposed of the writ petition with the observation that the petitioner could move a proper application for summoning the documents from the GST Department at the appropriate stage of his defence. No specific GST provisions were discussed in detail, but the procedural aspect of summoning documents under the Cr.P.C. was central.

Facts

The petitioner, Ajay Singh, filed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging two orders. The first order, dated 14.03.2022, was passed by the ACJM, Court No. 3, Moradabad, rejecting an application moved under Section 311 Cr.P.C. The second order, dated 6.7.2022, was passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Moradabad, dismissing a criminal revision against the ACJM's order. The ACJM had rejected the application on the grounds that the GST Department is a public office and its registration certificate is a public document, which the petitioner could obtain. The revisional court held the order to be interlocutory and thus not maintainable for revision. The High Court noted that the petitioner would have an opportunity to produce evidence in defence after the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order rejecting the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for summoning documents from the GST Department is illegal, materially irregular, or suffers from a manifest error, thereby requiring interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner sought to set aside the orders of the trial court and the revisional court, implying that the rejection of his application to summon GST documents was unjustified and that the revisional court erred in dismissing his revision. Respondent's contention (State of U.P.): The State, through the learned A.G.A., likely supported the impugned orders, arguing that the application was premature and that the petitioner had other avenues to obtain the documents at a later stage of the proceedings. The revisional court's finding that the order was interlocutory and not subject to revision was also likely supported.