HC quashes magistrate's order on NBW against actor
Bombay High Court
quashed and set aside a magistrate's order that issued a
non-bailable warrant
against actor
Arjun Rampal
in a 2019
tax evasion case
.
"On a perusal of the said order, it is clear that no reasons are recorded. In my view, this would cause prejudice to the petitioner in the given facts and circumstances as he would face an order of non-bailable warrant in a case of bailable offence," said
Justice Advait Sethna
on May 16.
Rampal challenged the April 9 order of the additional chief metropolitan magistrate, Ballard Pier. An advocate had sought his exemption from appearance, but the magistrate rejected the application, observing that the accused failed to comply with bail provisions.
Justice Sethna noted that under Section 276 C (2) (wilful attempt to evade tax etc) of the Income Tax Act, the maximum sentence is only three years and the offence is bailable in nature. The magistrate, "not taking into consideration such position, has mechanically passed the order...in a bailable offence." He also "overlooked" the advocate's presence. "In such circumstances, such order would be contrary to law," added Justice Sethna.
tnn
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
5 hours ago
- The Hindu
Bombay High Court dismisses petition against Maharashtra's agri procurement scheme, calls them ‘baseless'
The Bombay High Court has dismissed petitions challenging a Maharashtra Government Resolution (GR) dated March 12, 2024, on the procurement and supply of agricultural inputs to farmers, calling them 'totally baseless' and imposing a cost of ₹1 lakh on the petitioners. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep V. Marne rejected a Public Interest Litigation filed by the Agri Sprayers T.I.M. Association and others contested the tender-based procurement model adopted under the new GR. The Bench ruled that there was no flaw in the GR, which outlines the government's plan to supply five items — battery-operated sprayers, nano urea, nano DAP, metaldehyde pesticide, and cotton storage bags — to farmers under a special scheme for boosting productivity and developing the value chain of cotton, soybean, and oilseeds. The order passed on July 22 and made available on July 25, observed that filing of these baseless petitions has resulted in creation of hurdles in effective implementation of the Special Action Plan, which is aimed at giving impetus to cultivation of specified crops and benefitting the farmers. 'A trader and manufacturer of one of the products has attempted to frustrate the Special Action Plan with the motive of promoting his own business interests. For this reason, also, while dismissing the Petitions, we are inclined to impose costs on the Petitioners.' The petition filed by Agri Sprayers T.I.M. Association and others, challenged the GR dated March 12, 2024, which contemplates procurement and supply of five items: fertilisers, pesticides and agriculture equipment to the farmers under special program for enhancement of productivity. The petitioners argued that the new procurement model marked a shift from the 2016 GR, which had facilitated farm subsidies via the Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT) scheme, enabling farmers to purchase such items from local vendors. They alleged that the state agencies were now procuring these products at inflated prices, thus harming both manufacturers and farmers. The petition said that the GR has the effect of deleting the items such as: Battery Operated Sprayers, Nano Urea, Nano DAP, Metaldihide Pesticide and cotton storage bags from Schedule-A of the GR dated December 5, 2016, by which amounts towards purchase of the said items were to be directly paid to the farmers under Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT). The petitioners said they are aggrieved by the action of the State government in directing procurement of the items for supply thereof to the farmers through Maharashtra Agro Industries Development Corporation Limited (MAIDCL) and Maharashtra State Powerloom Corporation Limited (MSPCL) and insisted that the subsidy for procurement of the said five items must be paid in cash to the farmers so as to enable them to purchase the same from local traders rather than procuring and supplying them through agencies like MAIDCL, MSPC, etc. The Bench ordered, 'We do not find any merit in Writ Petition as well as PIL petition and both are accordingly dismissed by imposing costs of ₹1,00,000 on Petitioners to be paid to the High Court Legal Services Authority within 4 weeks. If costs are not paid within the stipulated time, the Registry shall make a report to the jurisdictional District Collector for recovery of the amount of costs from Mr. Tushar Padgilwar as arrears of land revenue. In view of the dismissal of the Writ petition as well as the PIL petition, the Interim Applications do not survive and are accordingly disposed of.' The petitioners argued that the new procurement model marked a shift from the 2016 GR, which had facilitated farm subsidies via the Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT) scheme, enabling farmers to purchase such items from local vendors. They alleged that the state agencies were now procuring these products at inflated prices, thus harming both manufacturers and farmers. Advocate Nikhil Sakhardande, appearing for the petitioners, argued the DBT model offered farmers better value, letting them buy locally at competitive rates. Senior advocate V.R. Dhond, representing the State, clarified that the current GR was part of a broader initiative and not merely about product distribution. The court agreed and held that the two GRs were distinct in objective and scope. It observed that the 2016 GR focused on DBT subsidies for broader agricultural items, whereas the 2024 GR aimed at structured, state-led procurement for a targeted action plan to improve oilseed productivity. The Bench ruled that the petitioners had 'no locus standi' to challenge the GR as their interests were purely commercial and did not reflect any public concern. It held that the petitioners had 'erroneously mixed up' the objectives of two separate GRs and thereby failed to establish any legal infirmity in the March 2024 resolution.
Economic Times
6 hours ago
- Economic Times
Debt by cash transactions of over Rs 20,000 not legally enforceable: Kerala HC
Synopsis The Kerala High Court made a significant ruling. It involves cash transactions exceeding Rs 20,000. Such debts are not legally enforceable without proper justification. This decision came during a cheque dishonor case appeal. The court acquitted the accused, emphasizing the need to discourage large cash transactions. This aligns with India's digital economy goals. The Kerala High Court on Friday declared that a debt created by a cash transaction of above Rs 20,000 in violation of the Income Tax Act is not a "legally enforceable debt" unless there is a valid explanation for the same. ADVERTISEMENT Justice P V Kunhikrishnan made the declaration while allowing a plea for setting aside the conviction and sentence of a man accused in a cheque dishonor case. The accused was sentenced to one year and imposed with a fine of Rs 9 lakh by a sessions court for the offence of dishonour of cheque due to insufficiency of funds in the account under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act. In his appeal in the High Court against the sessions court decision, the accused claimed that as the amount of Rs 9 lakh given to him by the complainant was in cash, it was an illegal transaction according to the Income Tax laws. "Therefore, a debt created by an illegal transaction cannot be treated as a legally enforceable debt," the accused had claimed. Agreeing with the accused's contention, Justice Kunhikrishnan said that if a criminal court "indirectly legalises such illegal transactions in violation of the IT Act" by treating them as a legally enforceable debt, it will be against the aim of the country to discourage cash transactions above Rs 20,000. ADVERTISEMENT The High Court said that discouraging cash transactions above Rs 20,000 was also "a part of the 'digital India' dream of our country, which is propounded by our Prime Minister to save our economy and to curb a parallel economy in our country". "If the debt arises through an illegal transaction, that debt cannot be treated as a legally enforceable debt. If the court regularises such transactions, that will encourage illegal transactions by the citizens. Even black money will be converted into white money through the criminal courts," the High Court said. ADVERTISEMENT It further said that in such cases the accused should challenge such transactions in evidence and has to rebut the presumption under section 139 of the NI Act that "the holder of a cheque received it for the discharge of a debt or other liability". In the instant case, the accused had rebutted the presumption by claiming that the complainant does not have the source to loan out Rs 9 lakh and therefore, the debt alleged to be due to him cannot be treated as a legally enforceable one, the HC said. ADVERTISEMENT It allowed the accused's revision petition and acquitted him by setting aside his conviction and sentence by the lower court. The High Court said if anybody pays an amount in excess of Rs 20,000 to another person by cash in violation of the IT Act and thereafter receives a cheque for that debt, he should take responsibility to get back the amount, unless there is a valid explanation for such cash transactions. ADVERTISEMENT "If there is no valid explanation in tune with provisions of the IT Act, the doors of the criminal court will be closed for such illegal transactions," the HC said. It also made it clear that its findings would be prospective in nature. (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel) (Catch all the Business News, Breaking News, Budget 2025 Events and Latest News Updates on The Economic Times.) Subscribe to The Economic Times Prime and read the ET ePaper online. NEXT STORY
Time of India
8 hours ago
- Time of India
Debt by cash transactions of over Rs 20,000 not legally enforceable: Kerala HC
The Kerala High Court on Friday declared that a debt created by a cash transaction of above Rs 20,000 in violation of the Income Tax Act is not a " legally enforceable debt " unless there is a valid explanation for the same. Justice P V Kunhikrishnan made the declaration while allowing a plea for setting aside the conviction and sentence of a man accused in a cheque dishonor case . Explore courses from Top Institutes in Please select course: Select a Course Category Others Management Technology CXO Data Analytics Product Management Digital Marketing Leadership Artificial Intelligence Data Science healthcare Public Policy Operations Management Cybersecurity MBA Degree MCA others Finance Data Science Project Management PGDM Skills you'll gain: Duration: 28 Weeks MICA CERT-MICA SBMPR Async India Starts on undefined Get Details Skills you'll gain: Duration: 7 Months S P Jain Institute of Management and Research CERT-SPJIMR Exec Cert Prog in AI for Biz India Starts on undefined Get Details Skills you'll gain: Duration: 16 Weeks Indian School of Business CERT-ISB Transforming HR with Analytics & AI India Starts on undefined Get Details Skills you'll gain: Duration: 9 months IIM Lucknow SEPO - IIML CHRO India Starts on undefined Get Details The accused was sentenced to one year and imposed with a fine of Rs 9 lakh by a sessions court for the offence of dishonour of cheque due to insufficiency of funds in the account under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Animal Advocate Begs: Never Do This With A Senior Dog ExpertsInPetHealth Learn More Undo In his appeal in the High Court against the sessions court decision, the accused claimed that as the amount of Rs 9 lakh given to him by the complainant was in cash, it was an illegal transaction according to the Income Tax laws. "Therefore, a debt created by an illegal transaction cannot be treated as a legally enforceable debt," the accused had claimed. Live Events Agreeing with the accused's contention, Justice Kunhikrishnan said that if a criminal court "indirectly legalises such illegal transactions in violation of the IT Act" by treating them as a legally enforceable debt, it will be against the aim of the country to discourage cash transactions above Rs 20,000. The High Court said that discouraging cash transactions above Rs 20,000 was also "a part of the 'digital India' dream of our country, which is propounded by our Prime Minister to save our economy and to curb a parallel economy in our country". "If the debt arises through an illegal transaction, that debt cannot be treated as a legally enforceable debt. If the court regularises such transactions, that will encourage illegal transactions by the citizens. Even black money will be converted into white money through the criminal courts," the High Court said. It further said that in such cases the accused should challenge such transactions in evidence and has to rebut the presumption under section 139 of the NI Act that "the holder of a cheque received it for the discharge of a debt or other liability". In the instant case, the accused had rebutted the presumption by claiming that the complainant does not have the source to loan out Rs 9 lakh and therefore, the debt alleged to be due to him cannot be treated as a legally enforceable one, the HC said. It allowed the accused's revision petition and acquitted him by setting aside his conviction and sentence by the lower court. The High Court said if anybody pays an amount in excess of Rs 20,000 to another person by cash in violation of the IT Act and thereafter receives a cheque for that debt, he should take responsibility to get back the amount, unless there is a valid explanation for such cash transactions. "If there is no valid explanation in tune with provisions of the IT Act, the doors of the criminal court will be closed for such illegal transactions," the HC said. It also made it clear that its findings would be prospective in nature.
