Dismissed

Abdulrafiq Abdulkariim Mulla v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC19 Nov 2020CRL.P/100867/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court examined six criminal petitions seeking to quash criminal complaints for alleged forgery of Income Tax TDS certificates. The court held that the petitioner must prove genuineness of documents at trial and dismissed the petitions as not fit for exercising jurisdiction under s. 482 CrPC.

What did the court decide?

All criminal petitions were dismissed; intervention IAs were also disposed of.

Abdulrafiq Abdulkariim Mulla Vs State of Karnataka — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 19^th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE Dr.JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100867/2015 c/w CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.100868/2015, 100869/2015, 100870/2015, 100871/2015 and 100872/2015

¶6

In Crl.P. No.100867/2015 BETWEEN:

¶7

ABDULRAFIQ ABDULKARIIM MULLA AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS R/O. 167/A, MULLA BUILDING NEAR BUS STAND RAIBAG TQ:CHIKODI, DIST: BELGAUM

¶8

... PETITIONER (BY SRI. NEELENDRA D. GUNDE, ADV.)

¶9

AND:

¶10

STATE OF KARNATAKA R/BY STATE PROSECUTOR, THROUGH BENIKATTI R.L., INCOME TAX OFFICER, OPP. DISTRICT CIVIL HOSPITAL BELAGAVI, DHARWAD .. RESPONDENT (BY SRI. Y.V. RAVIRAJ, ADVOCATE)

¶11

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED JUDGE,

¶12

Crl.P. No. 100867/2015 2 c/w Crl.P.Nos.100868/2015, 100869/2015, 100870/2015, 100871/2015 & 100872/2015

¶13

FAST TRACK COURT-II AND SESSIONS JUDGE-BELAGAVI, IN CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.136/2013 DATED 24.03.2015, THEREBY CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED JMFC II, BELGAVI DATED 05.03.2013 IN CC NO.12/2004 WHEREBY REJECTING THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER SECTION 245(1) OF CR.P.C. AND CONSEQUENTLY DISCHARGE THE PETITIONER OF OFFENCE UNDER SECTIONS 177, 182, 191 AND 198 OF IPC AND PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER OR ORDERS AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶14

IN CRL.P.NO.100868 OF 2015

¶15

BETWEEN

¶16

ABDUL KHADAR HASAN ALI MAKANDAR AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS R/O. 167/A, MULLA BUILDING NEAR BUS STAND RAIBAG TQ:CHIKODI, DIST: BELGAUM

¶17

..PETITIONER

¶18

(By Sri. NEELENDRA D GUNDE, ADV.)

¶19

AND

¶20

STATE OF KARNATAKA R/BY STATE PROSECUTOR, THROUGH BENIKATTI R.L., INCOME TAX OFFICER, OPP. DISTRICT CIVIL HOSPITAL BELAGAVI, DHARWAD

¶21

.. RESPONDENT (BY SRI. Y.V. RAVIRAJ, ADVOCATE)

¶22

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED JUDGE,

¶23

Crl.P. No. 100867/2015 3 c/w Crl.P.Nos.100868/2015, 100869/2015, 100870/2015, 100871/2015 & 100872/2015

¶24

FAST TRACK COURT-II AND SESSIONS JUDGE-BELAGAVI, IN CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.137/2013 DATED 24.03.2015, THEREBY CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED JMFC II, BELGAVI DATED 05.03.2013 IN CC NO.13/2004 WHEREBY REJECTING THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER SECTION 245(1) OF CR.P.C. AND CONSEQUENTLY DISCHARGE THE PETITIONER OF OFFENCE UNDER SECTIONS 177, 182, 191 AND 198 OF IPC AND PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER OR ORDERS AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶25

IN CRL.P NO 100869 OF 2015

¶26

BETWEEN

¶27

ABDUL SATTAR ABDUL KARIIM MULLA AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS R/O. 1674/A, MULLA BUILDING NEAR BUS STAND RAIBAG TQ:CHIKODI, DIST: BELGAUM

¶28

..PETITIONER

¶29

(By Sri. NEELENDRA D GUNDE, ADV.) AND

¶30

STATE OF KARNATAKA R/BY STATE PROSECUTOR, THROUGH BENIKATTI R.L., INCOME TAX OFFICER, OPP. DISTRICT CIVIL HOSPITAL BELAGAVI, DHARWAD .. RESPONDENT (BY SRI. Y.V. RAVIRAJ, ADVOCATE)

¶31

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED JUDGE,

¶32

Crl.P. No. 100867/2015 4 c/w Crl.P.Nos.100868/2015, 100869/2015, 100870/2015, 100871/2015 & 100872/2015

¶33

FAST TRACK COURT-II AND SESSIONS JUDGE-BELAGAVI, IN CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.138/2013 DATED 24.03.2015, THEREBY CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED JMFC II, BELGAVI DATED 05.03.2013 IN CC NO.14/2004 WHEREBY REJECTING THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER SECTION 245(1) OF CR.P.C. AND CONSEQUENTLY DISCHARGE THE PETITIONER OF OFFENCE UNDER SECTIONS 177, 182, 191 AND 198 OF IPC AND PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER OR ORDERS AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶34

IN CRL.P NO 100870 OF 2015

¶35

BETWEEN

¶36

ISMAIL YUSUF PATHAN AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS R/O. 1674/A, MULLA BUILDING NEAR BUS STAND RAIBAG TQ:CHIKODI, DIST: BELGAUM

¶37

..PETITIONER

¶38

(By Sri. NEELENDRA D GUNDE, ADV.)

¶39

AND

¶40

STATE OF KARNATAKA R/BY STATE PROSECUTOR, THROUGH BENIKATTI R.L., INCOME TAX OFFICER, OPP. DISTRICT CIVIL HOSPITAL BELAGAVI, DHARWAD

¶41

.. RESPONDENT (BY SRI. Y.V. RAVIRAJ, ADVOCATE)

¶42

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED JUDGE,

¶43

Crl.P. No. 100867/2015 5 c/w Crl.P.Nos.100868/2015, 100869/2015, 100870/2015, 100871/2015 & 100872/2015

¶44

FAST TRACK COURT-II AND SESSIONS JUDGE-BELAGAVI, IN CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.140/2013 DATED 24.03.2015, THEREBY CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED JMFC II, BELGAVI DATED 05.03.2013 IN CC NO.17/2004 WHEREBY REJECTING THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER SECTION 245(1) OF CR.P.C. AND CONSEQUENTLY DISCHARGE THE PETITIONER OF OFFENCE UNDER SECTIONS 177, 182, 191 AND 198 OF IPC AND PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER OR ORDERS AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶45

IN CRL.P NO 100871 OF 2015

¶46

BETWEEN

¶47

ABDULMAJID ABDULKARIM MULLA AGE:50 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS R/O. 1674/A, MULLA BUILDING NEAR BUS STAND RAIBAG TQ:CHIKODI, DIST: BELGAUM

¶48

..PETITIONER

¶49

(By Sri. NEELENDRA D GUNDE, ADV.) AND

¶50

STATE OF KARNATAKA R/BY STATE PROSECUTOR, THROUGH BENIKATTI R.L., INCOME TAX OFFICER, OPP. DISTRICT CIVIL HOSPITAL BELAGAVI, DHARWAD .. RESPONDENT (BY SRI. Y.V. RAVIRAJ, ADVOCATE)

¶51

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED JUDGE,

¶52

Crl.P. No. 100867/2015 6 c/w Crl.P.Nos.100868/2015, 100869/2015, 100870/2015, 100871/2015 & 100872/2015

¶53

FAST TRACK COURT-II AND SESSIONS JUDGE-BELAGAVI, IN CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.139/2013 DATED 24.03.2015, THEREBY CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED JMFC II, BELGAVI DATED 05.03.2013 IN CC NO.15/2004 WHEREBY REJECTING THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER SECTION 245(1) OF CR.P.C. AND CONSEQUENTLY DISCHARGE THE PETITIONER OF OFFENCE UNDER SECTIONS 177, 182, 191 AND 198 OF IPC AND PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER OR ORDERS AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶54

IN CRL.P NO 100872 OF 2015

¶55

BETWEEN

¶56

MOHMMADIQBAL MULLA AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS R/O. 1674/A, MULLA BUILDING NEAR BUS STAND RAIBAG TQ:CHIKODI, DIST: BELGAUM

¶57

..PETITIONER

¶58

(By Sri. NEELENDRA D GUNDE, ADV.) AND

¶59

STATE OF KARNATAKA R/BY STATE PROSECUTOR, THROUGH BENIKATTI R.L., INCOME TAX OFFICER, OPP. DISTRICT CIVIL HOSPITAL BELAGAVI, DHARWAD .. RESPONDENT (BY SRI. Y.V. RAVIRAJ, ADVOCATE)

¶60

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED JUDGE,

¶61

Crl.P. No. 100867/2015 7 c/w Crl.P.Nos.100868/2015, 100869/2015, 100870/2015, 100871/2015 & 100872/2015

¶62

FAST TRACK COURT-II AND SESSIONS JUDGE-BELAGAVI, IN CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.141/2013 DATED 24.03.2015, THEREBY CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED JMFC II, BELGAVI DATED 05.03.2013 IN CC NO.18/2004 WHEREBY REJECTING THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER SECTION 245(1) OF CR.P.C. AND CONSEQUENTLY DISCHARGE THE PETITIONER OF OFFENCE UNDER SECTIONS 177, 182, 191 AND 198 OF IPC AND PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER OR ORDERS AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶63

THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS COMING ON FOR HEARING THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶64

ORDER

¶65

In all these petitions, the petitioners, who are the assesses under income tax, being aggrieved by the order passed by the Fast Track Court II and Sessions Judge, Belagavi (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the ‘Fast Track Court’) in Criminal Revision Petition Nos.136/2013, 137/2013, 138/2013, 139/2013, 140/2013 and 141/2013 dated 24.03.2015 wherein it has confirmed the order of the learned JMFC-II,

¶66

Crl.P. No. 100867/2015 8 c/w Crl.P.Nos.100868/2015, 100869/2015, 100870/2015, 100871/2015 & 100872/2015

¶67

Belgaum(hereinafter for brevity referred to as ‘the trial Court) dated 05.03.2013 in CC Nos.12/2004, 13/2004, 14/2004, 15/2004, 17/2004 and 18/2004 wherein it has rejected the applications filed under Section 245(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(hereinafter for brevity referred to as the ‘Cr.P.C.’), have presented these petitions.

¶68

In all these petitions, the petitioners are the accused in the trial Court and the respondent is the complainant in the trial Court.

¶69

The complainant who is the Income Tax Officer in all these cases had filed private complaint in the trial Court

¶70

alleging that the petitioners herein (accused therein) who are the assesses of income tax and who had filed their income

¶71

tax returns for the particular assessment years had also enclosed several Form No.16A (certificate of deduction of tax at source) under Section 203 of Income Tax Act 1961. According to all those accused, they were doing the contract work

¶72

No.16A

¶73

Crl.P. No. 100867/2015 9 c/w Crl.P.Nos.100868/2015,

¶74

100869/2015, 100870/2015, 100871/2015 & 100872/2015

¶75

of M/s Raibag Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Niyamit, Raibag, district Belgaum (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the ‘Sugar Factory’) and it was the said Sugar Factory which had issued those Form No.16As. The income Tax Authorities noticing that apparently there were several defects in Form No.16As submitted by the assesses (petitioners herein) enquired into the matter with the Bank as to whether the amount shown to have been deducted at source, as tax, had been credited to the Bank and got information that no such amount was deposited by the alleged deductor with the bank. Further, the complainant authority also enquired with the Sugar Factory only to know that no contract work was entrusted to any of these petitioners (accused), as such, the question of Sugar Factory issuing Form No.16As (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the ‘TDS certificate’) does not arise. Based on these inputs, the complainant proceeded to issue notice to all these

¶76

Crl.P. No. 100867/2015 c/w Crl.P.Nos.100868/2015, 100869/2015, 100870/2015, 100871/2015 & 100872/2015

¶77

assesses calling upon them as to why the said amount be recovered. The accused gave their reply statement that those TDS certificates (Form No.16A) were issued to them by the Sugar Factory. Since the complainant authority were not convinced, that the Sugar Factory has denied that it had issued those TDS certificates to the petitioners(accused), had proceeded to lodge a complaint against each of the present petitioners alleging the offence punishable under Sections 177, 182, 191, 192 and 198 of IPC. All these petitioners, who are the accused in those criminal cases appeared before the trial Court and filed an application under Section 245(1) of Cr.P.C. seeking their discharge. However, the trial

¶78

Court by its impugned order dated 05.03.2013 rejected those applications. Against the same, the present petitioners (accused) preferred revision in Criminal Revision Petition Nos.136/2013, 137/2013, 138/2013, 139/2013, 140/2013 and 141/2013 before the Fast

¶79

Crl.P. No. 100867/2015

¶80

11 c/w Crl.P.Nos.100868/2015, 100869/2015, 100870/2015, 100871/2015 & 100872/2015

¶81

Track Court II and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, which also by its impugned common order dated 24.03.2015 dismissed the revision petitions. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have preferred these criminal petitions.

¶82

Since all these petitions contain a common

¶83

question to be considered, all these matters are taken as connected matters. Common arguments were heard from both side.

¶84

Learned counsel for the petitioners in his

¶85

argument submitted the petitioners are the bona fide

¶86

assesses who have made use of the TDS certificates issued to them by the sugar Factory, as such, if at all the Income Tax Authority has got any grievance, they must proceed against the deductor i.e. the Sugar Factory, from which it can recover the deducted amount.

¶87

He further submitted that had really the petitioners either created or forged the TDS certificates, the first

¶88

Crl.P. No. 100867/2015 12 c/w Crl.P.Nos.100868/2015, 100869/2015, 100870/2015, 100871/2015 & 100872/2015

¶89

person to lodge a complaint against them was the Sugar Factory. Since the said Sugar Factory itself has not filed

¶90

any complaint against the petitioners, the Income Tax Authority cannot maintain any such complaint. Lastly, the learned counsel also submitted the very act of the Income Tax Authority seeking recovery of the alleged TDS amount from the Sugar Factory go to show that the Sugar Factory has deducted the TDS and Form No.16As’ issued by it to the petitioners are all genuine.

¶91

Per contra, learned standing counsel for the respondent/complainant in his argument submitted that

¶92

all the TDS certificates filed by each of the petitioners herein are apparently defective. They were bearing incomplete dates and in correct date of deposit of the TDS amount which was shown to be an earlier date to

¶93

the alleged payment said to have been made by the assesses and also under the same challan number with different dates of payment. He further submits that

¶94

Crl.P. No. 100867/2015 13 c/w Crl.P.Nos.100868/2015, 100869/2015, 100870/2015, 100871/2015 & 100872/2015

¶95

since those TDS certificates were doubtful in their apparent character, the authority enquired into the matter and came to know that neither the sugar Factory has entrusted any work to these assesses/petitioners for the relevant assessment year nor issued any TDS certificates that were produced by all these petitioners. It also ascertained from the Bank that the alleged TDS amount has not been credited to the Income Tax account by the deductor, as such also, the alleged deduction was found to be incorrect. Thus, it has proceeded both as against the alleged deductor and as well as the assesses as required under the Income Tax Law.

¶96

It is not in dispute that all these petitioners

¶97

are income tax assesses and they filed their returns under income tax for the relevant assessment years as mentioned in their petitions. It is also not in dispute that in their returns they had referred to and enclosed

¶98

few Form No.16As-TDS certificates and thereby

¶99

Crl.P. No. 100867/2015 14 c/w Crl.P.Nos.100868/2015, 100869/2015, 100870/2015, 100871/2015 & 100872/2015

¶100

claimed the deduction in their income towards the TDS made. Admittedly, all those TDS said to have been produced by all these petitioners(accused) with their returns were shown to have been issued by the Sugar Factory, however, for the different assessment years. It is suspecting the correctness, genuinity and authenticity of those Form No.16As, the Income Tax Authority, admittedly, have scrutinized them and verified its entries with the issuing authority i.e. the Sugar Factory and the bank to which the alleged deducted amount was required to be credited and after confirming, he claim to have initiated criminal case against these petitioners for the alleged offence alleging that they have created or forged the TDS certificates which were not genuine and authenticated. In this regard, the respondent has placed before this Court along with his statement of objections few documents as annexures from Annexures R1 to R11.

¶101

Crl.P. No. 100867/2015

¶102

15 c/w Crl.P.Nos.100868/2015, 100869/2015, 100870/2015, 100871/2015 & 100872/2015

¶103

Annexures R1, R2, R3 and R4 are some of the Form No.16As-TDS certificates which apparently go to show that the same have been issued by the Managing Director of the Sugar Factory for a particular assessment year showing that the amount mentioned therein has been deducted at source as income tax. However, Annexures R1 and R2 bear no date except month and the year and these two annexures further go to show that the alleged tax said to have been deducted at source is shown to have been credited to the Government Account under the challan bearing No.7/ 30.11.1995 when in fact the very same certificate go to show that the date of payment/credit to the petitioners (the contractor) was 13.12.1997. Thus, about two years earlier to the alleged payment shown to have been made to the alleged contractor (petitioners) the alleged deducted tax at source is shown to have been credited to the Government account and the said Government

¶104

Crl.P. No. 100867/2015 16 c/w Crl.P.Nos.100868/2015, 100869/2015, 100870/2015, 100871/2015 & 100872/2015

¶105

account and those certificates are also shown to have been maintained and credited at Syndicate Bank, Branch Raibag.

¶106

Annexures R5 and R6, at this stage would go to show that the Income Tax Officer (complainant) made correspondence with the said Syndicate Bank, Raibag Branch to ascertain whether the alleged deduction shown to have been made from the Sugar Factory were credited to the Government account as shown in the Form No.16As. A reply in writing issued by the bank which are Exs.R5 and R6 at this stage would go to show that the bank has stated that no such alleged deducted amount has been credited to the Government account in their branch. The details of alleged deduction of amount said to have been credited individually were considered and replied to by the bank, however, with exception of 4 depositors.

¶107

Lastly, the complainant is shown to have made correspondence with the creditors also as could be seen in the documents at Exs.R7, R8 and R9 which go to

¶108

Crl.P. No. 100867/2015 17 c/w Crl.P.Nos.100868/2015, 100869/2015, 100870/2015, 100871/2015 & 100872/2015

¶109

show that the said factory though at one place has stated that with respect to 2 contractors for 8 transactions it has deducted the tax at source total amounting to `72,862/(Annexure R11) but the very same Sugar Factory in its letter of even date (Annexure R7) has categorically stated that in respect of six other contractors (the petitioners herein) since no contract was awarded to them nor any work was carried out by them, the question of issuing any TDS certificates to them does not arise. It has categorically and specifically stated that the factory has not issued Form No.16A in respect of TDS amount and persons named in the letter of the complainant addressed to the Sugar Factory. This

¶110

way, even though the very same sugar factory is shown to have stated that it has deducted TDS with respect of two contractors but it cannot be forgotten that the present petitioners are six in number and the total amount of alleged TDS amount is also very much higher

¶111

Crl.P. No. 100867/2015 18 c/w Crl.P.Nos.100868/2015, 100869/2015, 100870/2015, 100871/2015 & 100872/2015

¶112

than `72,862/- which the Sugar Factory appears to have shown in Annexure R11.

¶113

It cannot be ignored that very same Sugar Factory in Annexure R7 has given the names of six of the present petitioners and clarified that the amount shown against their names as the alleged TDS amount has not been deducted by it, as such, no TDS certificate has been issued by it. Thus, at this stage, prima facie, it can be inferred that it is only after certain preliminary inquiry, the Income Tax Authority has proceeded to initiate appropriate legal action against the present petitioners including instituting the present criminal case against them. As such, a mere stray admission of PW-1 who is shown to have stated in his evidence that the tax deducted at source by the Sugar Factory was not deposited by the said Sugar Factory cannot be inferred that the alleged amount of tax deducted at source was equivalent to the benefits under Form No.16A claimed

¶114

Crl.P. No. 100867/2015 19 c/w Crl.P.Nos.100868/2015, 100869/2015, 100870/2015, 100871/2015 & 100872/2015

¶115

by the present petitioners and which are subject matter of the criminal cases pending against them. Further, it also cannot be ignored of the fact that the income tax authority in this kind of case would go both as against the alleged deductor who is under statutory obligation to deduct the income tax at source as well the assesses and it is only after enquiry or trial, it will be ascertained and concluded as to who is at fault- whether it is the deductor or the assessee.

¶116

Thus, it is clear that the complainant authority, as required under law, have issued notice

¶117

even to the deductor also and ascertained details from him about the alleged tax said to have been deducted at source and alleged issuance of TDS certificates to the present petitioners. Simultaneously, it has issued show cause notice initially to the present petitioners and it is only after receiving their reply and after being not satisfied with their reply, has proceeded against them.

¶118

Crl.P. No. 100867/2015 20 c/w Crl.P.Nos.100868/2015, 100869/2015, 100870/2015, 100871/2015 & 100872/2015

¶119

Therefore, if at all the present petitioners have got a valid defence in their support that all the Form No.16AsTDS certificates are genuine and authenticated and have been issued to them by none else than the Sugar Factory, then it is for them to place it before the Court and prove them at the appropriate stage which according to me is not a stage when they have filed an application under Section 245(1) of Cr.P.C. Therefore, suffice it to say that the both the trial Court as well as the revisional Court after appreciating these aspects, though in the nut shell, have arrived at a conclusion, the present petitioners does not deserve to be discharged from the criminal cases filed against them by the Income Tax Authority (respondent). As such, it is not a fit case where this Court can exercise its power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

¶120

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order.

¶121

Crl.P. No. 100867/2015

¶122

21 c/w Crl.P.Nos.100868/2015, 100869/2015, 100870/2015,

¶123

100871/2015 & 100872/2015

¶124

ORDER

¶125

All these petitions are dismissed.

¶126

In view of dismissal of the main petitions, I.A.1/2019 in all these petitions do not survive for consideration.

¶127

Sd/JUDGE

¶128

kmv

Abdulrafiq Abdulkariim Mulla v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdulrafiq Abdulkariim Mulla v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suheel @ Suhel S/O Mehaboobali Nadaf Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt.Janakibai @ Sarojani W/O Sitaram Kamat Vs the State of Karnataka

The Managing Director Vs Vikas Sahebrao Ahire

Dr K Umesh Vs the State of Karnataka

Abdul Sattar Abdul Kariim Mulla Vs State of Karnataka

Ismail Yusuf Pathan Vs State of Karnataka