IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3857 OF 2009 Krishnakumar K Gupta Dashrath Krishnajirao More ..... ..... ...Applicants V/s The State of Maharashtra ..... ..... .Respondent. Mr.Shirish Gupte, Sr. Adv. With Mr.J.R.Solanki and S.D.Vyas, i/by Mr.Sandeep V. Mahadik, Adv. for the applicants. Mr.P.A.Pol, PP with Mr.A.R.Patil, APP for the Respondent. CORAM: A.P.DESHPANDE, J. 26th August, 2009. PC: Apprehending arrest in CR No.222/09 registered on a complaint filed by the Sales Tax Officer with Sion police station for commission of offence punishable under sections 465, 467, 471, 420 read with section 34 of IPC and section 74 of Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002, (VAT) the applicants have moved the present application seeking anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the present applicant No.1 is the director of M/s.K.K.G Traders Pvt. Ltd. And other 26 companies. During the period from April, 2005 to March, 2008 the applicants prepared false bills/tax invoices indicating sale of the goods worth about Rs.718 crores when in fact the applicants’ companies do not carry on any trade or business whatsoever. According to the prosecution the beneficiaries in whose favour the applicants issues false bills/tax invoices used to claim set off on the basis of fake sales reflected from the fake bills issued by the applicants under the 1 provisions of Value Added Tax Act and thereby duped the State Government and caused undue loss to the extent of Rs.28.72 crores. After the sales tax department came to know about the fraud played by the applicants a complaint was lodged and offence is registered. By filing reply on affidavit it has been brought on record that during the course of investigation it is revealed that the applicants did not do any kind of trading business either in the form of purchase, sale or manufacture of goods but the applicants only deal in manufacture of fake bills/tax invoices without there being any trading activity. The said illegal activity of the applicants are stated to have been routed through 26 companies which were formed just for the purpose of camouflage. It is also stated that after the recording of statement of the main beneficiary one Mr.Rasik Vershi Savla, Director of M/s.Bright Global Pvt. Ltd. it is revealed that though the said person was issued bills/invoices by the present applicants there was no real transaction and acting on the said bills/invoices a set off has been claimed at the rate of 4% on the total purchase under VAT thereby causing undue loss to the Government. It has been also stated that the applicant No.2 is actually working as office peon of the applicant No.1 in the company but he has been shown as a director. 3. In the above set of facts and circumstances learned counsel for the applicants has in the first place contended that as the applicants have allegedly committed an offence punishable under section 74 of Maharashtra Value Added Act, 2002 they can only be dealt with under the provisions of said Special Act and cannot be subjected to the penalties provided for under Indian Penal Code. In the second place it is submitted that the complaint has been filed belatedly and there being no chance of the applicants absconding the applicants are entitled to be 2 released by granting anticipatory bail. So far as the first submission is concerned that the applicants cannot be charged with offences under IPC as the offence is covered by section 74 of MVATA is devoid of any merit. There is no ouster either express or by necessary implication. Hence the contention is rejected. The affidavit filed on behalf of the State clearly reveals the modus operandi adopted by the present applicants in commission of the offence. According to the learned Public Prosecutor custodial interrogation of the applicants is necessary with a view to investigate various facets of the offence committed by the present applicants. On perusal of the material on record I have no iota of doubt that prima facie the investigating officer has collected enough material to connect the present applicants with the crime. In my view this is not a fit case where in the applicants can be released by grant of pre-arrest bail. In the result application is rejected. 26.8.2009. 3