CR.RA/606/1988 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION No. 606 of 1988 WITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION No. 605 of 1988 WITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION No. 604 of 1988 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.R.VORA ========================================= = 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================= = M/S SAMIR TRADING CO. & OTHERS Versus NISHI SINGH & ANOTHER ========================================= = Appearance : NOTICE SERVED for Applicant Nos.1-4 MR MANISH R BHATT for Respondent No.1 MR RP BHATT for Respondent No.1 MR LB DABHI APP for Respondent No.2 ========================================= = CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.R.VORA CR.RA/606/1988 2/4 JUDGMENT Date : 24/11/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT [1] Learned advocate Mr.A.S.Kothari appearing in all these three Revision Applications expired and, therefore, a notice was served by affixing upon each of the applicant of these three Revision Applications. Office endorsement shows that notices in each of these three Revision Applications have been served to the respective applicants, but none appears. The matter is pending since 1988 and has been adjourned 37 times. [2] In all the Revision Applications, learned advocate Mr.R.P.Bhatt for the respondent No.1 is also not present when the matter was called out, while learned APP Mr.L.B.Dabhi for the respondent No.1 – State is present. [3] A common question of law has arisen in all these Revision Applications and hence tagged together and these being Revision Applications, this Court has gone through the record available thoroughly. [4] The respondent No.1 herein in all the Revision Applications preferred Criminal Case Nos.217/1985, 286/1985 and 545/1985 before the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad for the offences punishable under Section 276(C) and under Section 277 CR.RA/606/1988 3/4 JUDGMENT of the Income Tax Act. In the trial Court, the issue was raised about staying of the prosecution because each of the applicants of these three Revision Applications had preferred an application under Section 245 of the Income Tax Act to exempt them from criminal prosecution and the said matters were pending. Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad vide his order dated 25.09.1985 was pleased to grant the request of the present applicants in each criminal case and stayed the prosecution till the issue urged before the Income Tax Department under Section 245 of the Income Tax Act was decided. Against that order, Income Tax Department i.e. Income Tax Officer preferred in all three Criminal Revision Applications bearing Nos.241/1985, 242/1985 and 243/1985 in the Court of City Sessions, Ahmedabad. After hearing the parties in all the three Revision Applications, learned City Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad by his common order dated 19.09.1988 was pleased to allow all the three Revision Applications and the orders staying the criminal cases, passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate was set aside and the learned Magistrate was directed to proceed with those criminal cases and dispose of them according to law as early as possible. Being aggrieved against those three orders in each Revision Applications of the City Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad, the present three Revision Applications are filed. [5] On going through the issue in each of the Revision Applications, this Court has found that the issue is covered by the CR.RA/606/1988 4/4 JUDGMENT decision of this Court in the case of Adarsh Tin Industries Vs. State of Gujarat and others, as reported in 1988 GLH 299 and, therefore, this Court does not find any substances in these Revision Applications. Even otherwise also, even after issuing notice and serving them by affixing, none of the revisionists in any of these Revision Applications is present. The common order passed by learned City Sessions Judge in three Criminal Revision Applications was examined and found correct, proper and legal. [6] In view of the above, Criminal Revision Application No.606/1988, Criminal Revision Application No.605/1988 and Criminal Revision Application No.604/1988 stand dismissed. The stay granted by this Court on 10th January, 1989 in each of the Revision Applications to stay the proceedings of Criminal Case pending in the trial Court is vacated. Rule is discharged in each of the Revision Applications. [ J. R. VORA,J. ] (vijay)