Narinder Singh vs State of H.P.

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.—The petitioner is an accused in FIR No. 67 of 2014, registered on 22.5.2014, with the Police Station (East) Shimla, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B IPC. The FIR is at the instance of the Excise and Taxation Department, the contents whereof read as follows:

That on 22.5.2014, one Satish Kumar in the Office of Asstt. Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Shimla-9, H.P. approached the police Station (East), to inform that during the course of reconciliation of accounts in respect of license fees for the year 2013-14, the amount of license fee as shown on the part C claimed to have been deposited by some licensees and appended with the application for issue of excise passes did not match with the part B Treasury receipts, when collected by the office from District Treasury Shimla. The procedure for depositing license fee in advance is prescribed as per rule 35A (23) (b) of the H.P. Liquor License Rules, 1986, the recovery of license fee shall be linked with the lifting of Country Liquor and Foreign Spirit quota. The licensee shall deposit the license fee into the Government treasury before obtaining the excise pass for issue of liquor from the wholesaler. According to rule 31 (Mode of Payment) read with rule 33, all payments on account of fees mentioned in Rule 27 and 30 shall be made into the Government Treasury under proper Head of Accounts, and in token of such payments, the Treasury Receipts will be submitted to the competent authority. Sh. Narinder Singh was licensee in Subzi Mandi-II Unit during the year 2013-14. He has committed fraud of Rs. 72,90,000/-. He has submitted 12 Treasury Receipts Part C to the tune of Rs. 79, 35,000/- to the department. But when the reconciliation was made with the treasury the actual amount deposited was only Rs. 6, 45,000/-, so the licensee has tampered C part of the Treasury Receipts and caused wrongful loss to the Government revenue for the tune of Rs. 72,90,000/-. Further, said Sh. Narinder Singh has not deposited any amount of the difference in forged treasury receipts despite issuance of notices and the department has encashed security amount of Rs. 24,93,674/- on dated 28.4.2014 out of the FDRs furnished in the office. It is stated that said Sh. Narinder Singh has furnished an affidavit dated 26.4.2014 in the Excise and Taxation Office stating therein that his Manager Sh. Satish Kumar, was responsible for all the transactions between the Bank, Treasury and he has submitted these treasury receipts to the department. Further, said Satish Kumar had furnished post dated cheques amounting to Rs. 1,25,00,000/- in the month of March, 2014 on behalf of Sh. Narender Singh, licensee against arrear of the license fee. In response to notice dated 29.4.2014, on 2.5.2014, said Narender Singh requested to adjust security of Rs. 24 lakhs and enclosed two post dated cheques, cheque No. 000004, dt. 31.7.2014 for Rs. 25.00 lakhs drawn on HDFC Bank, New Shimla and Cheque No. 000003, dt. 30.08.2014 for Rs. 21.00 lakhs of the same Bank from his A/c No. 50100015299122.

Though the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 12.6.2014, it was extended vide order dated 19.6.2014 and the case was fixed for 4.7.2014. Today, the records of the investigation as well as the status report have been submitted to the Court, which have been perused by me carefully and minutely.

The petitioner is accused of a serious offence and is stated to have committed forgery to the tune of Rs. 47,96,326/-. Initially, he had informed this Court that he has persuaded the other co-accused to deliver post dated cheques in favour of the Excise and Taxation Department, however, during the course of investigation, it has been revealed that even these cheques have since been dishonored. The petitioner has claimed to be innocent stating that he has nothing to do with the commission of the offence, while it has been proved on record that the liquor vends infact were in the name of the petitioner. The investigation records, as made available to the Court for perusal, clearly establish the complexity of the petitioner and his claim of being innocent, is clearly belied from the perusal thereof. Looking into the seriousness of not only the allegations but even the material which has come on record, the discretion of bail cannot be extended in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed and it is clarified that the interim orders passed by this court on 12.6.2014 as extended on 19.6.2014 will automatically stand vacated.

Needless to observe here that any observation(s) made hereinabove, shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court shall decide the matter uninfluenced by any observation made hereinabove.