The Patiala House Court has refused the Anticipatory Bail to Person accused of Creating Dummy Directors and manufacturing, and supplying of clandestine without bill.
The applicant/accused, Krishnakant Pandey has submitted that the statements of the accused/applicant have already been recorded on various occasions, although, he has stated that the statements were recorded under such conditions, where the application/accused had no option but to sign the statements or to face immediate arrest.
The department on the other hand has submitted that the Agency is facing difficulty in conducting investigation in the present case as despite repeated notices, the employees, agents and the Directors of the accused company are not appearing or co-operating with the investigation. He has pointed out that the accused persons have admitted that the Directors on record are only dummy Directors and it was the accused persons who were running the business of the company.
Even the statement pointed out that all the business was being carried out on the instructions of the accused persons and money collected from the clandestine sale was paid to the accused persons directly. It was further pointed out that there is a web of small firms, which are also dealing with similar goods and articles and they are all owned by the applicants/accused persons and the whole network is used for clandestine manufacturing and supply of goods without there being any bill or invoice in this regard.
The ADJ Harjyot Singh Bhalla while dismissing the application ruled that the present case is of clandestine manufacturing and sale which is covered by Section 132 (1) (a). Although, the punishment and the status of the case has cognizable and non bailable is the same, the evidence of both category of cases would necessarily be different. In case of offence under sub Section (1) (b) & (c), the evidence would necessarily be documentary and also available in the form of returns submitted as they involve an element of filing of return. Whereas, Section 132 (1) (a). pertains to a situation where there may not be any bills or invoices and evidence would have to be mostly ocular. Considering that such evidence would have to be given by the employees and persons involved in the production, transportation and sale, in cases, it may be possible for the accused persons to yield influence which may hamper the investigation.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
