1 crrevn244.11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION AAPPLICATION NO. 244 OF 2011 The State of Maharashtra ...Applicant. Vs. Ravindra Punamchand Angara & Another ..Respondents. Mr. S.A. Shaikh, APP for the Applicant-State. Mr. Murtaza Najmi for the Respondents. CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 13TH OCTOBER, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard. 2. In Sessions Case No. 740 of 2009 an application below Exh.33 was submitted by the learned Special Public Prosecutor seeking incorporating charge under Section 179 of Indian Penal Code and Section 74(2), 74(3), 74(4) and 75(5) of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002. The said application was moved after recording evidence of the complainant Shri Dilip Dhole, Assistant Sales Tax Commissioner. On analyzing the material placed before the Court, the learned Judge found that the ingredients required for framing charge under Section 179 of IPC are that the accused was legally bound to state the truth being questioned by a public servant on a certain subject in exercise of the legal powers as such. That public servant questioned the accused on that subject and the accused refused to answer the question demanded by such public servant touching such subject. The 2 crrevn244.11.sxw learned Judge on perusal of the complaint and statement of the witnesses found, it does not reflect such ingredients to prove the primary ingredients of Section 179 IPC. With the assistance of learned APP and learned Counsel appearing for respondent, I have gone through the evidence of P.W.1 and also the text in the FIR. I found that no primary case in terms of Section 179 of IPC would be made and the learned Judge was therefore, justified in not acceding to the request of the State to incorporate Section 179 of IPC. 3. The request to add Section 74(2), 74(3), 74(4) and 74(5) of Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 is concerned the penalty or infraction was yet to be established. No material to this effect could be found. There was nothing before the concern officer of any infringement of these provisions and consequently, I do not find any error on the part of the learned Judge in not entertaining application even to frame charge under 74(2), 74(3),74(4) and 74(5). Rejection of application Exh.33 on 19th March, 2011 does not call for any interference. Revision dismissed. 4 The learned Judge seized with the matter is at liberty to exercise powers under Section 216 of Cr.P.C. whenever such occasion creeps in. ( K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. )