Petitioner sought extension of stay and argued prosecution base was lost due to subordinate court remand. Court directed placement of records with trial court to assess prosecution basis before disposing of application.
Petitioner directed to produce ITAT remand order records to trial court; stay application dismissed as infrunctuous.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. M.P. No. 611 of 2002
With I.A. Nos. 3891 of 2018 & 266 of 2020
Naresh Kumar Agrawal…..…....... Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Jharkhand & Ors………… Opp. Party(s)
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ananda Sen
For the Petitioner : Mr. Vikash Pandey, Advocate For the State : A.P.P.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that because of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “ Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. and Another-versus- Central Bureau of investigation, reported in (2018) 16 SCC 299 ”, the court below is proceeding in the matter. Thus, the stay needs to be extended.
On query, he submits that the case is now fixed for defence evidence as the prosecution evidence has already been closed.
In that view, with the consent of the parties, this application is being disposed of at this stage itself.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, on merits, submits that the petitioner is being prosecuted for committing the offence punishable under Sections 276 C, 276 CC and 277 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. He submits that the basis of the prosecution has lost because the ITAT has allowed the appeal of the petitioner and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer to decide the matter afresh. He submits that once the ITAT has remanded the matter, the prosecution cannot continue.
Considering the submission of the petitioner, I think that it would be appropriate for the petitioner to place all the records and the order passed by the ITAT before the court below as the trial is at the stage of defence evidence. If those documents are produced before the trial court, the trial court can appreciate the documents as evidence and actually come to the conclusion as to whether the basis remains or the basis is no more to proceed against the petitioner. These evidence need to be led by the defence.
Thus, I direct the petitioner to lead the defence evidence annexing all the documents, which are in his favour, which would be considered by
-2-
the trial court.
With the aforesaid observation and direction, this criminal miscellaneous petition stands disposed of.
In view of the final order passed in the main application, I.A. Nos. 3891 of 2018 and 266 of 2020 have become infructuous. Accordingly, it is dismissed as infructuous.
( Ananda Sen, J )
Mukund/-cp.3
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Naresh Kumar Agrawal
State of Jharkhand
Ananda Sen
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
