AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard the parties.
So far as defect no. 5 (e) is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to remove the same, once the situation normalizes. As regards, defect no. 9 (i) is concerned, the same is ignored.
The petitioner is an accused in connection with Telco P.S. Case No. 104 of 2018 corresponding to G. R. No. 2027 of 2018.
It has been alleged that Pankaj Singh, the proprietor of P. K. Traders was involved in giving benefits of I.T.C. to the businessmen illegally and defrauded the government exchequer by filing a wrong statement. It has also been alleged that while submitting the form for registration, Pan card, Voter card, Aadhar card, Bank account number, mobile number, rent agreement, house rent agreement, electricity bill etc. of the commercial places were submitted, but the landlord Gulab Singh had clarified that the said Pankaj Kumar Singh is not his tenant and no rent agreement was executed between them. It has further been alleged that Pankaj Kumar Singh had intimated that he works under a Contractor and that he had taken registration of GST with the help of Satya Prakash Singh, who had taken away all the documents and Pankaj Kumar Singh did not have any business. It appears that Pankaj Kumar Singh and Satya Prakash Singh had given their statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. in G. R. No. 1860 of 2018, in which the petitioner has been implicated to the effect that Pan card, Voter card etc. were taken from Pankaj Kumar Singh by the accused persons including the petitioner on the lure of money and subsequently they could came to know that crores of rupees have been swindled by the accused persons.
In view of the apparent involvement of the petitioner which has come to the surface, in view of the statement of Pankaj Kumar Singh and Satya Prakash Singh recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., I am not inclined to allow this application, and the same is hereby rejected.