Case Facts:
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.34524 of 2010 (5) dt.11-07-2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.34524 of 2010 ====================================================== Pramod Kumar, S/O-Late Mahavir Mahaseth, resident of village-Bhawana Kotwali Chowk, P.S.-Madhubani, District-Madhubani .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 5 20-07-2012 This petition has been filed by the petitioner, Pramod Kumar under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing the order dated 27.10.2009 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Madhubani in Madhubani Town P.S. Case No. 229 of 2002 corresponding to Trial No. 2423 of 2010 by which and whereunder the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Madhubani took cognizance for the offences under [STATUTE] and 49 (3d) of Bihar Finance Act, 1981. Briefly stated the fact of the case is that on 03.07.2002, the vigilance team of Sales Tax Investigation Bureau, Darbhanga inspected the premises of the petitioner and seized account books and other documents and prima facie it was found that during the financial year 1999-2000, 2000-2001 and 2001- 2002 several transactions were made by the petitioner but he had submitted returns in the aforesaid financial years in Sales Tax Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.34524 of 2010 (5) dt.11-07-2012 Office showing total sale is zero and, accordingly, petitioner committed the offence punishable under Section 49 (3d) of Bihar Finance Act, 1981 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The Assistant Commissioner, Sales Tax gave a written report to officer in charge of Sadar Police Station, Madhubani and on the basis of aforesaid written report, Madhubani Town P.S. Case No. 229 of 2002 for the offences punishable under [STATUTE] and 49 (3d) of Bihar Finance Act, 1981 was registered against the petitioner. The matter was investigated by the police and after investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner for the above stated offences. Having receipt of the charge-sheet, learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Madhubani passed the impugned order taking cognizance of the aforesaid offences against the petitioner. Petitioner being dissatisfied and aggrieved with the impugned order has filed this quashing petition. The counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State denying almost all the pleadings of the petitioner. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner challenged the impugned order on the sole ground that no opportunity of being heard was provided to the petitioner under Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.34524 of 2010 (5) dt.11-07-2012 [STATUTE] is not applicable in this case because the alleged offence comes under the provision of Bihar Finance Act and furthermore, it is well settled principle of law that the special act shall prevail over the general law. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor supported the impugned order submitting that present first information report has been registered for the offences under Section 49 (3d) of Bihar Finance Act, 1981 and on the basis of seized account books and other documents penalty has already been imposed upon the petitioner under Section 20 of Bihar Finance Act and moreover, ample opportunity of being heard was given to the petitioner before the imposition of penalty on him under Section 20 of Bihar Finance Act. It is further contended by him that the lower court has found prima facie case against the petitioner and, therefore, it would not be proper for this Court to interfere into the impugned order. Having heard the contentions of both the parties, I have gone through the record. According to prosecution case itself, a surprise inspection on the premises of the petitioner was made on 03.07.2002 whereas written report was submitted on 25.07.2002 Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.34524 of 2010 (5) dt.11-07-2012 but there is nothing in the written report to show this fact that any opportunity of being heard was given to the petitioner before institution of the present first information report. Section 17 (2) (a) says that:- If the prescribed authority is not satisfied, without requiring the presence of or the production of accounts and other evidence by the registered dealer or a dealer to whom grant of registration certificate has been refused under the third proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 14, that the returns furnished by such dealer in respect of any period are correct and complete, the prescribed authority shall serve on such dealer a notice in the prescribed manner requiring him on a date and at a time and place to be specified therein either to attend in person or through an authorized representative or to produce or to cause to be produced any accounts and other evidence on which such dealer may rely in support of such returns. Section 17 (2) (b) says that:- On the day specified in the notice or as soon thereafter as may be, the prescribed authority shall, after examining the accounts and other evidence as the prescribed authority may, by notice in writing, require on specified points, assess the amount of tax due from the dealer. Furthermore, Section 17 (3) says that:- If a registered dealer or dealer to whom grant of registration certificate has been Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.34524 of 2010 (5) dt.11-07-2012 refused under the third proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 14, having furnished returns in respect of a period fails to comply with all the terms of the notice under sub-section (2) or if the accounts and other evidence produced by him are, in the opinion of the prescribed authority, incorrect, incomplete or unreliable either wholly or

Applicable IPC Section: 379

Statute Text:
Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. Theft. Whoever commits theft shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.