The Calcutta High Court has recently quashed the order directed against a resigned director who had no connection to the actual offence alleged to be committed under the West Bengal Value Added Tax Act, 2017.
The instant criminal revisional application had been preferred for setting aside of an order dated August 3, 2018 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate of Calcutta in connection with a case registered in 2010 under Sections 93(4)(a), 93(4)(c), 93(6) and 93(7) of the West Bengal Value Added Tax Act, 2003 read with Sections 403, 420, 120B, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Ayan Bhattacherjee, Aditya Ratan Tiwary and Somdev Ash appeared for the petitioners and submitted that the present petitioner had resigned from the company as a Director in the year 1994 and the other petitioners have no connection in the alleged occurrence of offence.
It was further contended that, however, the police conducted the investigation and submitted a charge sheet. The petitioners have filed one application under Section 239 of CrPC for discharge of all the charges against the accused, if they are found not to constitute any offence. The Court need not undertake a detailed evaluation of the materials at this stage. which was turned out by the learned Magistrate. Hence, the present criminal revisional application (CRA) has been preferred by the appellants.
The advocates for the petitioners also submitted that the impugned order passed by the court below suffers illegality and impropriety. He pointed out that the learned court below has not at all considered the points raised by them before the learned court below under Section 239 CrPC.
It was also argued that the impugned order dated August 3, 2018 would show that the court below had considered the merit of the case of the present petitioners but legally the prayer has been turned down.
State representative appeared and submitted that necessary orders may be passed.
The Bench of Justice Subhendu Samanta observed that, “It appears that the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate is a cryptic one and he has not assigned any reason for passing the impugned order.”
It was thereby directed that Learned Magistrate is to reconsider the prayer of the petitioners under Section 239 CrPC. again and pass an appropriate order to that effect. The reason for passing the order must be assigned there.
The impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate was also set aside by the Single Bench of Calcutta High Court.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
