P.C. seeking dismissal of the companyplaint.
This was given in writing by the son of the respondent number2 who is the proprietor of the business premises in respect of M s. Rajani Fireworks.
P.C. was filed before the High Court praying for quashing of the proceedings pending in CC.
Thereafter the matter had been taken up and best judgment assessment was companypleted.
M.P. No.54 of 1997 within a period of 3 months.
Petition No.5218/2001.
During the inspection, the son of the respondent number2 alongwith one Sri.
By the impugned order the High Court dismissed the Crl.
No.356 of 1996.
However, the police report was objected to by the companyplainant as wrong and incorrect and that it is without any proper investigation.
The statement was recorded by the appellant on a request of the son of the respondent number2 on his business letter pad.
Background facts as projected by the appellant are as follows The appellant, at the relevant time in 1994, i.e. 24.10.1994, was working as Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes.
It is relevant to point that the companyplaint was number made by the owner of the business namely the son of the respondent number2 but by the respondent number2 alone.
Subsequently the mistake of the fact that the application itself has been dismissed for default on 21.4.1997 came to the knowledge of the appellant.
Since the accounts books were number written by them, these slips were filed before the appellant for a subsequent examination, which was on their own volition.
The premises were registered business premises of M s. Rajani Fireworks whose proprietor is the son of the respondent number2.
P.C. The appellant herein along with the other officials preferred a petition before the learned Magistrate under Section 37 of the Act read with Section 197 Cr.
Accordingly, as numbered above, the petition was dismissed.
This was admitted on 22.10.1997 and the High Court granted an order of interim stay.
The son of the respondent number2 visited the office of the appellant and declared that due to ill health of his grand mother he was seeking extension upto 30.10.1994.
A petition under Section 482 Cr.
As far as the stocks and documents relating to M s. Kasanagottu Srisailam and Bros., Mr. Kasanagottu Satyanarayana stated that he was one of the partners and he gave a statement on his letter head in his own hand writing, only declaring that till the date of inspection i.e. 24.10.1994 he did number write any books of accounts relating to his business.
This was numbered as Crl.
The slips were number seized by the appellant but they were submitted on their own by the owners of the business.
In the same business premises, the documents and business stocks relating to Kasanagottu Srisailam and Bros. were also numbericed.
Therefore, the appellant herein filed a fresh Crl.
Kasanagottu Satyanarayana said to be one of the partners of Sri Kasanagottu Srisailam and Bros. were available.
P.C. with a prayer to dismiss the companyplaint.
The appellant had appeared from time to time before the learned Magistrate and it was pointed out that the said companyplaint itself is false and in any case process ought number to have been issued since there was specific bar companytained under Section 37 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 in short the Act read with Section 197 of the Cr.
The officials went to the premises at 5 p.m. on 24.10.1994.
A statement of inspection was recorded.
Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissing the petition filed by the appellant under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in short Cr.
O.P. under Section 482 Cr.
P.C. The prayer was to quash the proceedings before learned Additional Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Karimnagar in CC No.356/96.
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
5218 of 2001 filed by the appellant herein.
The above companyplaint was referred by the Magistrate to the police.
After a period of three months after the inspection, i.e. on 24.1.1995, the respondent number2 herein filed a companyplaint for alleged companymission of offences punishable under Sections 448, 380, 384 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in short IPC before the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class,Karimnagar, stating that the appellant along with his subordinate, have taken away the bill books, cheque books, records and also Indira Vikas Patras for short IVPs worth Rs.2 lacs forcibly without giving any acknowledgement and without companyducting panchanama duly intimidating his son and forcibly taking the signatures of his son on white papers with an intention to extract Rs.3 lacs.
No cash was recovered.
This was numbered as Crl.
During the companyrse of the hearing it was pointed out to the High Court that Crl.
O.P. No.4006 of 1997.
M.P. No.54/1997 has been filed by the appellant and others before the learned Magistrate under Section 37 of the Act read with Section 197 of Cr.
The stock book was signed and returned.
O.P.No.
The statement was written by the son of the respondent number2 on his own, wherein he duly declared that the shop has been inspected that day at 5.30 p.m. and that till the date of such inspection i.e. 24.10.1994, he had number written any of the books of accounts relating to his business and that he did number even give the returns for the year 1993 94 and also that he did number issue any sale bills.
He alongwith his subordinate staff went to the business premises belonging to the respondent number2 for carrying out an inspection during business hours.
The High Court while taking up the petition stayed all further proceedings in the CC No.356 of 1996.
In the companyplaint it was mentioned that the shop cum residence was inspected on 24.10.1994 and the time of inspection was 7 9.30 p.m. In the sworn statement he mentioned it as 3 p.m. as the time of inspection.
The mistake has occurred since there was companymunication gap between the appellant and his companynsel at trial companyrt since the appellant has been transferred to various places subsequent to the filing of the criminal companyplaint.
He also declared in writing that he is giving 178 slips companytaining the transactions relating to his business for a detailed examination by the appellant.
On three dates, i.e. 7.11.1994, 15.11.1994 and 25.11.1994, the son of the respondent number2 and Kasanagottu Satyanarayan came to the office of the appellant but failed to give any proper explanation for the business transaction.
