Bookmark
PDF
Share
CaseIQ

Ashvinkumar Vadilal Patel v. S. Rajguri And Another

Gujarat High Court

May 8, 1986

Judgment

CaseIQ

Smart Summary (Beta)

Factual and Procedural Background

Two criminal revision applications were filed by the applicant (originally the accused) challenging orders of the learned Metropolitan/Chief Metropolitan Magistrate refusing to stay criminal prosecutions. The applicant had applied to the Settlement Commission under section 245(H) of the Income Tax Act seeking immunity from prosecution. Two magistrate's orders are recited: in Criminal Case No. 580 (order rejected on the ground that the Settlement Commissioner has nothing to do with a prosecution u/s 193 IPC) and in Criminal Case No. 562/1985 (order rejected on the ground that the settlement application was filed after the complaint and S.245-A's definition of "case" excludes an already-filed complaint). The revisional court considered whether the mere filing of an application under section 245(H) requires a stay of prosecution.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the filing of an application under section 245(H) of the Income Tax Act (seeking immunity from prosecution) requires the criminal prosecution to be stayed while that application is pending.
Whether section 245(K) has any application in the present circumstances.
Whether an application for settlement filed after a complaint is filed can serve as a basis for staying prosecution or for invoking the Chapter XIX-A settlement process.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

The applicant sought a stay of the criminal prosecution on the ground that he had applied to the Settlement Commission under section 245(H) for immunity from prosecution.
The applicant's counsel referred to section 245(K) in submissions (context: limitations arising after a settlement order and subsequent conviction under Chapter XXII).
The applicant's counsel submitted that granting or refusing a stay is within the Magistrate's discretion and that if the Magistrate did not exercise the discretion according to law the matter should be remanded.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court examined the text of section 245(H), noting that the Settlement Commission may grant immunity from prosecution (including offences under the IPC) if satisfied that the applicant has cooperated and made full and true disclosure. The court reasoned that:

Merely making an application under section 245(H) does not itself confer immunity; immunity arises only if and when the Settlement Commission grants it.
Because no immunity exists while the application is pending, the pendency of such an application does not, as a matter of right, require a criminal prosecution to be stayed.
The merits of the settlement application are matters for the Settlement Commission, and the criminal court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate those merits or to grant temporary immunity by staying prosecution.
The power to grant immunity rests with the Settlement Commission and is to be exercised sparingly; the criminal court cannot usurp that power by staying prosecution.
Section 245(K) was considered but found inapplicable because there was no prior order of settlement, no conviction and no offence under Chapter XXII in the present cases.
Although a magistrate had earlier reasoned in one case that a settlement application filed after a complaint is not effective because S.245-A's definition of "case" excludes an already-filed complaint, the revisional court stated it was unnecessary to decide that issue because the primary ground for rejecting the stay (that pendency of a 245(H) application does not require stay) sufficed to dispose of the revision applications.
Regarding the applicant's submission for remand on discretionary exercise grounds, the court held that given the clear position of law (no immunity until granted), remanding would serve no useful purpose and would only multiply hearings on the same question.

Holding and Implications

DISPOSED OF: Both criminal revision applications are rejected.

Direct effect: The magistrates' orders refusing to stay the prosecutions stand and the criminal prosecutions are not stayed pending the applicant's settlement application under section 245(H). The opinion does not announce or rely upon any new precedent; it applies the existing statutory framework to deny a stay until immunity is actually granted by the Settlement Commission.

Show all summary ...

R.A Mehta, J.:— In these two revision applications, the applicant-original accused has challenged the order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, refusing to stay the criminal prosecution and has relied upon the circumstance that he has already made an application to the Settlement Commission under section 245(H) of the Income Tax Act for granting immunity Page: 928from prosecution. That Section reads as follows:

“The Settlement Commission, may, if it is satisfied that any person who made the application for settlement u/s. 245C has co-operated with the Settlement Commission in the proceedings before it and has made a full and true disclosure of his income and the manner in which such income has been derived, grant to such person, subject to such conditions as it may think fit to impose, immunity from prosecution for any offence under this Act or under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) or under any other Central Act for the time being in force and also (either wholly or in part) from the imposition of any penalty under this Act.) with respect to the case covered by the settlement”

2. In Criminal Case No. 580 of 1935, the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate has passed the following order.

“This is a prosecution u/s 193 IPC. The Settlement Commissioner has nothing to do with this aspect. Hence rejected.”

section 245(H) includes immunity not only for offences punishable under the Income Tax Act, but also for offences under the Indian Penal Code. But the basic question still remains as to whether the prosecution is required to be stayed merely because an application u/s 245(H) is made and is pending. Till such, application is granted, there is no immunity and merely because an application is made, about the merits of which there is nothing before the Court and regarding the merits of which the Criminal Court has no jurisdiction, the prosecution cannot be stayed. Moreover, the power to grant immunity is of the Settlement Commission to be exercised sparingly. The Criminal Court cannot grant even temporary immunity by granting stay of any of prosecution.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has also referred to Section 245(K) and submitted that where, after the passing of an order of settlement under the said sub-section (4) in relation to a case, such person is convicted of any offence under Chapter XXII in relation to that case, then, he shall not be entitled to apply for settlement under Section 245C in relation to any other matter.

4. This provision cannot have any application to the present case. There is no order of settlement, no conviction and no offence under Chapter XXII.

5. In Criminal Case No. 562/1985) also a similar application was made and the learned Chief Metroplitan Magistrate has passed the following order:

“Heard.

The significant fact in this case is that the application for settlement has been made after the complaint was filed. Again, in S. 245-A, ‘Case’ does not include a complaint already filed. The stages contemplated in Chapter XIX-A of the I.T Act precede the filing of complaint. Therefore, after a complaint is filed, the provisions have no application. It is only when a ‘case’ as defined in Sec. 245 A of the I.T Act is pending before a Tax Authority that application for settlement can be given. It appears that the application for settlement in this case has been filed after that stage is over. Hence rejected.”

6. It is not necessary to go into the question decided by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate because his order rejecting the stay application can also be justified in view of the ground on which such stay application is required to be rejected, namely, mere making of an application to the Settlement Commission under section 245(H) does not require that the prosecution be stayed.

7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Whether to grant stay of the prosecution or not is the discretion of the learned Magistrate and if the learned Magistrate has not exercised his discretion in accordance with the principles of law, the matter should be remanded. In view of the clear position of law and in view of the fact that until immunity is granted, the Criminal prosecution need not be stayed, no useful purpose will be served by remanding the matter and multiplying the hearings on the same question. Hence both these criminal revision applications are rejected.

8. Applications rejected.