Ramchandra Singh vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court allowed the application for anticipatory bail. It found that the applicants were employees of AWEL, which had secured a contract for wind power projects. The Wind Turbine Generators were purchased by AWEL from its own resources, and other infrastructure was also constructed by AWEL. The Court noted that the allegations were not that the applicants purchased land with pre-existing constructions or infrastructure provided by landowners. The crucial questions of whether the installation of Wind Turbine Generators or construction of infrastructure prior to executing sale deeds was done with the intention of evading stamp duty, or if it amounted to evasion, and whether the applicants were liable to pay stamp duty on their own material/infrastructure, or if it was done to expedite installation work, were all matters to be decided by the competent/Chief Controlling Revenue authority of the State. Given that the applicants had cooperated with the investigation and were working on behalf of their company, their custodial interrogation did not appear necessary, thus making out a case for anticipatory bail.

Facts

The applicants, employees of Adani Wind Energy M.P. One Private Limited (AWEL), sought anticipatory bail in a case registered for offences including evasion of stamp duty, cheating, and criminal conspiracy. The FIR alleged that AWEL undervalued sale deeds to pay less stamp duty. The applicants argued that AWEL purchased wind turbine generators after paying applicable GST, and that the company acquired land directly from farmers, with Kshema as an agency for land facilitation and installation. Commissioning certificates and No Objection Certificates were obtained. A complaint alleged undervaluation of sale deeds, leading to the FIR against the applicants as authorized signatories. The applicants contended they paid proper stamp duty and cooperated with the investigation, and their custodial interrogation was unnecessary.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicants have made out a case for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, considering the allegations of stamp duty evasion and the stage of investigation? Petitioner's Arguments: - The applicants are employees acting on behalf of their company, AWEL. - Proper stamp duty was paid, and the transactions were accounted for. - The allegation of undervaluation is false, as land was purchased from farmers, and stamp duty was paid on the basis of open land purchase. - AWEL purchased wind turbine generators after paying GST, and cannot be asked to pay stamp duty on its own installation. - The applicants have cooperated with the investigation and have no criminal antecedents. - Custodial interrogation is not necessary, and arrest would cause irreparable injury to their careers. - Relied on Supreme Court decisions in *Himalaya House Co. Ltd. Bombay vs. The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority* and *P. Kishore Kumar vs. Vittal K. Patkar*. Revenue's Arguments: - There is a huge evasion of stamp duty, with lesser duty paid to the tune of Rs. 15.52 Lakhs per location. - Identical photographs of lands from different villages were filed in sale deeds, and Wind Turbine Generators were already installed when registries were executed, as evidenced by satellite images. - The investigation is at an initial stage. - Applicants are not cooperating with the investigation and have not furnished all documents to the Investigating Officer. - Custodial interrogation is necessary.