ANIL RITOLLA@ A.K. RITOLIA versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR.

Citation: [2007] 9 S.C.R. 1091 · Decided: 18-09-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

.., 
ANIL RITOLLA@ A.K. RITOLIA 
A 
v. 
STATE OF BIHAR & ANR. 
SEPTEMBER 18, 2007 
(S.B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.J 
B 
Penal Code, 1860-s. 420-Commercial transaction between ageflt of 
company and Purchaser-Non-furnishing of Form IX-C under Sales Tax 
Rules by the agent-Complaint by purchaser alleging malafide in non- C 
furnishing of the Form-Criminal proceedings on the basis of complaint-
Application for quashing the proceedings dismissed by High Court-On 
appeal, held: Non-supply of Form IX-C cannot give rise to any offence-If the 
agent violated the provisions of Sales Tax Rules, the person could have 
recourse thereunder-In the facts of the case, no case has been made out to 
form an opinion that the agent had the requisite intention to deceive the D 
purchaser-Bihar Sales Tax Rules. 
Appellant was an authorized dealer of a Company. He was carrying on 
commercial transaction with respondent No. 2. Second respondent filed a 
complaint petition against the appellant alleging commission of offence u/s 
427, 384 and 420/34 IPC as the appellant had not furnished him Form IX-C E 
under Bihar Sales Tax Rules, with ma/a fide and dishonest intention; and 
that appellant compelled him to continue the business for the year 1998-99 
despite non-supply of Forum IX-C in the earlier years. Judicial Magistrate 
found existence of prima facie case for taking cognizance u/s 420 IPC. 
Summons were directed to be issued. An application u/s 482 Cr. P.C. for F 
quashing the criminal proceedings was dismissed by High Court. Hence the 
present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Payment of sales tax, is governed by the provisions of Bihar G 
Sales Tax Act and Rules framed thereunder. Rule 14 of the Rules prescribes 
procedure required to be taken in the even of non-receipt of Form IX-C. The 
transactions between the parties were for supply of goods. Admittedly, and 
except supply of Form IX-C other terms and conditions of the contract had 
been complied by them. Per se, supply or non-supply of Form IX- C of the 
1091 
H 
1092 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 9 S.C.R. 
A Bihar Sales Tax Rules had nothing to do with the transactions for which the 
parties had entered into a contract. Non-issuance of the said form ex-facie 
cannot give rise to commission of any offence. If the appellant-agent or their 
principal were obligated to act under a statute and failed to perform their 
duties, as the statute itself provides for a remedy, ordinarily the same is 
required to be taken recourse to. 
B 
[Paras 7 and 10) f 1094-F, G; 1095-G; 1096-A) 
2. It is correct that an offence can be committed even if the parties had 
entered into a commercial transaction. But it is equally well settled that the 
allegations contained in the complaint petition must, prima facie, show 
C inducement of the victim by the accused by making a representation. In a case 
of this nature, no case has been made out to form an opinion that the appellant 
had the requisite iittention. Till the financial year 1998-99 despite non-supply 
of Form IX-C prescribed under the Bihar Sales Tax Rules, the complainant 
raised no grievance. Only in the complainant petition, a purported statement 
had been made that the appellant compelled him to continue the business for 
D the year 1998-99 despite non-supply of Form IX-C in the earlier years. It is 
not a case where the appellants can be said to have induced the respondent to 
enter into a transaction so as to deceive them with a view to cause unlawful 
losses to them and to make unlawful gain for themselves. 
E 
[Paras 10, 6 and 11) [1096-B, C, F; 1094-E, F) 
Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd & Ors., f2006J 6 SCC 736, 
relied on. 
CRIMINAL APPELLAT~ JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1250 of 
2007. 
F 
From the Judgment and Order dated 4.12.2006 of the High Court of 
Judicature at Patna in Criminal Misc. No. 13360 of2005. 
Siddarth Luthra and Gaurav Agrawal for the Appellant. 
S.B. Upadhyay, Mohit Kumar Shah, Gopal Singh, Shiv Mangal Sharma, 
G funeet Parihar and Rajan Kumar for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
S.B. SINHA, J. I. Leave granted. 
2. Parties hereto admittedly had been carrying on commercial transactions. 
..._
H Appellant herein was an authorised dealer of Hindustan Lever Limited. ln 
"r 
ANIL [email protected]. RITOLIA v. STATE [SINHA, J.) 
1093 
connection with the said business transactions, appellant allegedly was required A 
to deliver to the second respondent Form IX
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.